This article is a collaboration between Lukas Spinnler (on Tyler Tanner) and Elias Reichek (on Chance Mallory).

Cover image by Ross Pinsler.

Tyler Tanner, by Lukas Spinnler

One of the many beauties of basketball, to me, lies in the coexistence of era-specific trends and its overarching principles. Whether we look at the 1950s or the modern game, the holistic approach to basketball remains largely unchanged. Teams still need lineups that can score efficiently, rebound effectively, and handle and distribute the ball without committing turnovers.

Traditionally, ball-handling responsibilities have been assigned to the point guard—the smallest and usually most skilled player on the floor. In recent years, however, we have seen a shift away from smaller point guards toward maximizing size across all positions, alongside a rising baseline of skill throughout the league.

In 2006, 26 players stood 6’1″ or under and logged at least 750 minutes in the league. Twenty years later, that number has dropped to just 15 players. As with many recent trends, this feels like an overcorrection to me. Smaller guards can still be highly impactful NBA players.

Let’s start with the commonly cited counterarguments against small guards: with the rise of point forwards, the “traditional” point guard has become obsolete, and it is more valuable to fill out guard positions with size. While there is some truth to this, the actual number of forwards capable of handling a significant on-ball load in the half-court is lower than it might initially appear.

Much of the value provided by ball-handling forwards comes in transition rather than in structured half-court offense. Even NBA All-Stars like Jalen Johnson and Deni Avdija have below-league-average efficiency in half-court situations currently, often accompanied by elevated scoring turnover rates.

There are also inherent physical challenges: at 6’8″ or taller, it is simply more difficult to maintain a low, controlled dribble and consistently access high-value areas of the court compared to smaller players.

Even the apex of this archetype, LeBron James, didn’t have half-court creation seasons quite up to par with other ATG perimeter creators; it was his transition play that made him one of the best offensive players ever.

Having smaller ball-handling options is not a redundant feature within a team; in fact, it should be a highly additive element to a team’s global offense.

The most intuitive argument against small guards is that their lack of size hurts teams defensively. Smaller guards typically struggle to rebound and are more likely to be targeted in high-leverage situations, which can lead to diminishing defensive returns. These are, in fact, the natural trade-offs that come with less size, and the numbers tend to support this.

There is a positive correlation between height and both dTS and dREB influence according to timedecay RAPM. Smaller players generally have the least impactful contests and don’t provide a lot of resistance at the rim for opposing players. 

Conversely, this same tradeoff applies to a different facet of the game: small guards positively influence their team’s turnover economy on both ends of the floor.

Because this position carries the highest overall skill threshold and operates closest to the ground, smaller players are often exceptional at limiting their team’s turnovers while also generating them on the defensive end.

Moreover, the best teams in the league are placing greater emphasis than ever on winning the turnover battle as a way to gain a competitive edge, the perfect breeding ground for the resurgence of the small guard.

In 2016, the correlation between offensive turnover rate (oTOV) and offensive rating (ORtg) was r = 0.25, while the correlation between defensive turnover rate (dTOV) and defensive rating (DRtg) stood at r = 0.16. Fast forward ten years, and these figures have risen to 0.48 and 0.43, respectively, clearly illustrating the growing emphasis on turnover economy by successful teams.

So, how is this relevant for draft evaluations? The stylistic advantages that small guards provide remain extremely valuable and are perhaps even more sought after today than ever before, but they come with an important caveat. The “classic” point guard who neither rebounds nor holds up defensively is likely to be a net negative in the long run. Instead, teams should prioritize prospects who excel in traditional point guard skills while also simulating size.

A study conducted by our dear friend Colton last season supports this idea: the key differentiator between successful and unsuccessful guard prospects in the league is not traditional guard skills alone, but rather skills typically associated with other positions such as rebounding, shot-blocking, efficient two-point scoring, and drawing fouls.

Having a high TRB%, BLK%, or 2P% and free-throw rate allows a player to “play bigger” than their listed size and aligns their statistical footprint more closely with that of taller players, an essential factor given the thin margins for smaller prospects. Identifying these players is where true margin wins are made, and where the future of the point guard position likely lies. This heuristic perfectly applies to Vanderbilt guard Tyler Tanner.

Let’s address the elephant in the room first: Tyler Tanner is small. He measured in at around 6’0″ in shoes with a 6’4″ wingspan and 167 lb, which would make him one of the smallest players in the league. Under normal circumstances, I would agree with the general consensus that investing valuable draft capital in undersized guards is a risky proposition. However, Tanner presents a different case. He not only excels in the inherent strengths of small point guards but also simulates size as well as any 6’0″ player in recent memory.

Returning to the core advantages of smaller guards outlined earlier- positive turnover influence on both ends and elevated skill thresholds that translate into superior touch and ball-handling- Tanner stands out clearly. Over the course of his career, he has posted a 4.4 STL% and a 3.3 assist-to-turnover ratio. This points to one of the most cerebral players in the country, a notion that is consistently supported by the film.

Tanner is not an especially flashy passer, but he frequently makes the correct read. In many ways, he embodies the prototype of a traditional point guard: organizing the offense, initiating sets, and getting his teammates involved without sacrificing ball security. When his backcourt partner Duke Miles was off the floor, Tanner’s assist percentage jumped to 36%, with only a marginal increase in turnovers.

He is particularly effective in pick-and-roll situations, where he consistently finds his roll man and leverages his handle to create high-quality opportunities for teammates.

Vanderbilt was in the top 15 in team TO% this year largely due to Tyler’s ability as a ball handler and improved offensive toolkit. Tanner’s relatively low rim assist rate speaks to his overall risk aversion, but a -2% swing in team TO% probably makes this a positive tradeoff. 

He also boasts a pretty impressive handle; Tanner gets low on drives and can access pretty much any area on the court with his small-space coordination and burst, as evidenced by a 7.4 TO% on drives. 

This year he almost doubled (!!!!) his usage and improved his efficiency, all while maintaining elite ancillary production.

Especially Tanner’s touch leap is intriguing: 85 FT% places him in elite company and is more than adequate for a small guard. 

So far, so good. We have established that Tyler Tanner provides all the skills associated with a “classic” PG. He avoids turnovers and playmakes at a high rate with a favourable intersection of FT% and handle, all while forcing turnovers on the other end. These skills have historically been good indicators of NBA success, but there are still plenty of “misses”.

The differentiator between + NBA contributors and overseas pros who also excel at the aforementioned skills is hitting certain thresholds of functional size and athleticism, which will allow you to get on the court and offset the small margins of <6`3 players. In this case, we are looking for applied physicality (DREB%, FTR, 2P%) and verticality (BLK%, dunks).

Among the 10 underclassmen who approximated Tanner’s blend of cognition and touch, he ranks 5th in DREB%, 3rd in FTR, 3rd in 2P%, 3rd in BLK%, and first in total dunks. 

Tanner’s ability to play bigger than his size is what truly sets him apart. Recording 15+ dunks in a single season is impressive for any guard, let alone one standing at 6’0″. His vertical explosiveness is genuinely unique in that regard.

He converted 64% of his attempts at the rim this year (58% in the half court), alongside a 46 FTR, both of which point to an unusual level of physicality for a player of his size. Unlike many smaller guards, Tanner does not shy away from contact. Instead, he embraces it, using his vertical pop to generate separation and create better finishing angles.

He does get blocked a fair amount of times simply due to his size, but not shying away from contact at the rim is overall a net positive, one of the main reasons for his robust FTR. 

This also leads me into my main issue with Tanner, though: simulating size is valuable, but it’s not the same as actually possessing it. Tanner’s scoring profile is incongruent with his anthropometric profile. 

Tanner posted a 1.7 rim:non-rim ratio alongside a 35 3PAR on the season. While prioritizing rim attempts is not inherently problematic, it may not be sustainable at the next level. Most sub-6’1″ players who find offensive success in the NBA tend to be more rim-averse, instead leaning on floaters, midrange scoring, or high three-point volume to compensate for their physical limitations.

To his credit, Tanner has improved as a three-point shooter; his mechanics are pretty quick, and his overall shot diet of 3s seems to be pretty deep, indicating comfort from the NBA 3pt line.

However, his overall volume remains relatively low (7.7 3PA per 100 possessions), and he attempted fewer pull-up threes than most of his peers, a near prerequisite for primary on-ball guards at the next level. Only 32% of his threes are unassisted, a figure more typical of a wing than lead guard. 

He has converted 38% of his non-rim 2s this year, and, especially in the beginning of the year, it was clear that he felt uncomfortable falling back on midrange counters when cut off. Especially on runners, he experienced trouble organizing his feet, resulting in awkward misses.

As the year went on, though, Tanner grew noticeably more comfortable in his floater, an encouraging development.

In his first 26 games, Tanner had a floater frequency of 11.8% while only converting 17.5% of them; in his last 10 games, he sits at a 12.9% Frequency and 47.1% FG%. A positive trend in a fairly small sample. 

Defensively, Tanner’s anticipation and hand-eye coordination really stand out. He generates steals and deflections both on and off the ball with quick hands and timely rotations.

His foot speed also allows him to hold up reasonably well against drives, and he has shown the ability to navigate screens effectively when chasing opposing guards.

That said, Tanner’s lack of size, particularly his frame and strength, does show up in certain situations, leading to ineffective contests and easier scoring opportunities for opponents. The best small guard defenders tend to be stronger and more physically developed than Tyler currently is, making strength development a clear priority moving forward.

Ultimately, Tyler Tanner has a generational intersection of traits. His cognition paired with his athleticism is a highly unique baseline on its own, paired with superb free throw shooting and a high degree of physicality, with above-average DREB, FTR and 2P%. On the other hand, it remains a question whether his body and shot process will allow him to maximise these traits. He’s pretty light and doesn’t have a long wingspan while having a poor shot diet for his specific mold. Low 3pr and poor floater conversion/rim reliance is a scoring process that is hard to keep up considering below-average WS and BMI, even for his position. I am usually an advocate of these „trait-maxxed“ players, but Tanner’s margins are going to be razor thin. Betting on probable development in terms of shot profile (improved mid-range efficiency in conference play and outlier high ft% are a solid pathway to 40+ 3pr and a more balanced offensive approach) and strength gain could work, but the downside is high. Nonetheless, I remain much higher than consensus on Tanner, and expect him to return top 10 value in his eventual draft class. This is a special prospect that should be treated as such.

Chance Mallory, by Elias Reichek

The past NBA season culminated with the (relatively) diminutive Jalen Brunson hoisting the Bill Russell NBA Finals MVP trophy in San Antonio. The Knicks’ sprint to the Finals, captained by one of the league’s smallest warriors, has reignited public and league discourse on the viability of small guards: is Brunson the exception, the only small guard capable of leading a team to a championship? Was Brunson even the most impactful Knicks player over the course of this run? Should teams search for the next Brunson? Is there even a next Brunson?

Such broad, archetypal NBA analysis will always be limited. Consigning a group of players, not classified by style or impact but merely anthros and positionality, to NBA purgatory is an inherently flawed concept. It’s why I’ve been confounded by the recent public doubt about small guards. This lack (and subsequent revival) of confidence in small guards is based on an oscillating perception of a handful of stylistically disparate players. As Luc mentioned, just 15 players shorter than 6’1 logged 750+ minutes last NBA season. The focus of fans and the media on the broad umbrella of small guards overlooks the nuance and richness of different players’ footprints on this beautiful game. Impact should be analyzed with specificity, on a case-by-case basis. 

Modern basketball positionality is best thought of as a spectrum, with cognition+perimeter skill on one end and physicality on the other. Though they aren’t independent of each other–it takes a certain level of spatial processing and awareness to actualize physical tools into functional impact–there’s still a general tradeoff present between the two sides among most players. As players ascend the positional spectrum, more physicality is required, and vice versa with cognition and perimeter skill. 

This brings me to the main concept of this article: small guards can still be viable at the NBA level; they simply have to find ways to mitigate their anthropometric weakness through functional traits. These players, like Tyler Tanner, can escape small guard purgatory (shoutout @100guaranteed for the apt term) by combining real guard-level cognition and skill with the physicality of a bigger player. Production in physically arduous areas (OREB%, DREB%, 2P%, FTR, dunks) despite a vertical disadvantage is crucial because it indicates three things: 1. future, impact-conducive production in these areas; 2. outlier physicality that can be applied to other aspects of the sport (for instance, as a defender vs. mismatch-hunting); and 3. general greater spatial awareness and processing. It takes special ball-tracking and hand-eye coordination for a player who’s 6-foot and below to compete as a rebounder against much larger players. In his latest piece, the brilliant @NileHoops touched on this idea while analyzing Jarred Vanderbilt’s outlier rebounding for his height/weight.

Speaking of a sub-6-footer with special ball-tracking and hand-eye coordination who competes as a rebounder against much larger players, soon-to-be sophomore Virginia guard Chance Mallory stands at 5 ’10 and 186 pounds (!!!). Despite his frame (and maybe because of it too?), I believe he will be a real NBA contributor in the next five years.

Many of the Virginia guard’s strengths parallel Tanner’s, namely his supreme cognition manifested in two-way turnover battle dominance and sustained playmaking impact. Mallory sported a pristine 3.0 A/TO on real usage (~20 USG% and 24 AST%), as well as an eye-popping 4.0 STL%.

The steal rate is especially impressive given the poor 2025-26 UVA dTOV ecosystem, as the Cavaliers were 257th in opponent TO% in the nation! Mallory’s defensive intelligence and activity are remarkable. Watch the ground he covers over the course of this possession against NC State, culminating in a steal:

Mallory’s passing, despite not being rim-heavy (just 37% of his assists were rim assists), had a massive bearing on UVA’s 2pt and rim scoring this past season. Every UVA rotation regular (min% >40) except Johann Grunloh shot significantly better from 2 and at the rim with Mallory on the court this season. It’s also worth noting that out of these regulars, every player except Sam Lewis was substantially more assisted at the rim with Mallory on the court. Mallory’s ability to effectively take on some of the initiation and creation burden made his teammates better 2pt scorers, as he created opportunities for his team to attack tilted defenses.

Mallory had a bevy of impressive passes this season, but my mind has replayed one especially astute dump-off pass versus Louisville, over and over and over again.

The play begins with Johann Grunloh slipping a ball screen for Mallory at the top of the key. Louisville big Sananda Fru does a good job initially recovering from a high drop to a rolling Grunloh. Meanwhile, Mallory cleverly creates space for himself: after his first dribble, Mallory hesitates, causing his defender, Ryan Conwell, to freeze behind him, creating more separation on his drive to the rim. Mallory’s change of pace has all but freed him from Conwell’s point-of-attack defense. Poised to exploit the 2-on-1 advantage he and Grunloh now field against Fru, Mallory begins his gather just outside the restricted area. Just as he’s gathering, the trailing Conwell makes a last-ditch effort to poke the ball free from Mallory’s clutches. Conwell’s poke disrupts Mallory’s gather, causing him to slightly bobble the ball as he begins his takeoff. Mallory’s rhythm is disrupted, and he finds himself midair, smothered by Fru, with basically no angle to finish at the rim. To make matters worse, because of the angle he jumped at, he is no longer facing Grunloh. Mallory seems to be out of options. 

What’s next is pure Mallory Magic: while he’s midair, knowing Grunloh is still lingering behind him, Mallory uses incredible core strength to contort around Fru, pitching the ball to Grunloh just before his feet touch the ground. Mallory’s gifts as a court mapper shone with as incredible a pass as I saw all NCAA season.

It’s been established that both Tanner and Mallory excel as playmakers and off-ball defenders. But where our two favorite small guards differ is in how they ‘simulate size.’ Luc explained how Tanner’s vertical athleticism, represented by his atypical blk%, dunks, and dreb%, should ease many of the zeitgeist’s qualms with his stature. Mallory simulates size too, in his own way. He isn’t the vertical athlete that Tanner is, but he has found ways to leverage his own most unique anthropometric trait: his weight. I led with Mallory’s measurements for a reason: he’s built like a tank. Pairing a low center of gravity with substantial mass and elite spatial processing and awareness leads to an unfathomable rebounding and contact-creation footprint for a supposedly small guard–Mallory notched a 4.4 ORB%, a 12.5 DRB%, and a 55.6 FTR in his freshman year! It cannot be overstated how noteworthy these marks are. A 5’10 guard should not be able to produce like this in high-major basketball.

Mallory had a particularly impressive sequence featuring astounding ball-tracking against Dayton in early December. Mallory, faced with a quasi-switch from Dayton’s big, is able to generate a closeout opportunity for a lifting Dallin Hall, and upon stopping short on his foray to the basket, Hall finds an open Thijs de Ridder in the opposite corner. You might think Mallory’s job is finished in this offensive possession; his first-action creation and gravity led to an open, high-value shot for his teammate. It would be in the best interest of practically every other player his size on the planet to get back on defense here: what more could such a small player do to contribute here? Instead (you could probably sense this coming), Mallory slowly creeps in for the offensive rebound. He times his jump perfectly, somehow winning an aerial duel against 6’6 Dayton guard Keonte Jones, snatching the ball away at the apex of his leap. Then Mallory has the wherewithal to find Hall again, who makes the kickout to Jacari White for a wide-open three. Mallory’s offensive rebounding is a surefire indicator of his unique blend of spatial processing and physicality. While UVA head coach Ryan Odom’s aggressive glass-crashing scheme certainly enhanced Mallory’s offensive rebounding production, his strong AAU priors as a rebounder lead me to believe that his outlier OREB% is not at all system-made. (On the 2023 Under Armor Circuit, Mallory had the second-most total rebounds for a strong Team Thrill, only trailing now-Pelicans forward Derik Queen.)

It’s hard to find historical analogs for Mallory because his profile is so contradictory. How many NCAA players have ever had such a sharply tuned shot diet (48.7 3PR/55.6 FTR and a 2.3 rim:non-rim ratio with guard-level unassistedness!) and robust passing+TOV aversion, while sustaining wing-adjacent offensive rebounding and legitimate havoc creation defensively? When factoring in age and conference, the list is very, very short.

Mallory is seemingly way out of his depth in this query. Yes, Mallory is significantly shorter than his stylistic peers. His lack of verticality is further reflected in his dunks #. I would be whatever the superlative of shocked is if he even dunks the ball once before he leaves college; meanwhile, Pippen, Smart, and Harden all compiled 20+ dunks over their respective NCAA careers. And the NBA trio had all handled nucleus-level usage by Mallory’s age. So what gives?

Even when accounting for the A/TO inflation that’s taken place over the course of the Bart era, Mallory’s turnover aversion is still significantly ahead of the field. Mallory shares a skill intersection with the 21st century’s (arguably) most formative player, one of the decade’s best ancillary talents, and a real rotation guard, while potentially boasting better cognition than all three of them.

My understanding of the term cognition, largely informed by the great work of @100guaranteed, is that it encompasses all forms of functional processing by a player. Any read/decision/action can technically be deciphered as an indicator of a player’s cognition; however, the most iron-clad empirical measures of cognition are heavily associated with guardness (as my positionality spiel entailed). This makes sense: guards have by far the largest processing burden.

 
Both Tanner and Mallory share a special intersection of cognition (manifested in STL%, AST%, and A/TO) and shooting talent in their profiles. When parsing for these qualities, and adjusting for age + conference, we are left with this intriguing list of NCAA seasons:

Why hasn’t Reed Sheppard been able to calcify his ostensible NCAA feel (2.2 A/TO & 4.6 STL%) into NBA-level TOV influence, while the even smaller Fred VanVleet has been dominant in those 2 factors for the better part of a decade?

With just one (ethical!) added filter, we can find Mallory isolated with two of the league’s foremost cognitive talents (VanVleet and Tyrese Haliburton):

Offensive rebounding appears to be another indicator of cognition for guards already sustaining playmaking loads and general perimeter responsibilities.  Offensive rebounding production represents both a baseline level of physicality and a nuanced understanding of space, as well as adept ball-tracking skills.

How these traits shaped the stylistic development of Fred VanVleet fascinates me. VanVleet is particularly relevant when discussing Mallory due to their similar skill intersections and measurements.

My hypothesis is that VanVleet’s acute spatial understanding has allowed him to make dramatic improvements as a volume pull-up 3pt shooter, as he’s able to process and recognize open shooting windows out of pick-and-roll situations extremely quickly. VanVleet’s pullup shooting results in his greatest value-add–his comically unbalanced, pullup 3-heavy shot diet has allowed him to wield some of the sport’s most robust offensive turnover suppression. I suspect that such a dramatic offensive adaptation from the college iterations of his scoring process has been enabled by VanVleet’s advanced cognitive abilities. (Perhaps a similar cognitive trait is responsible for James Harden’s development into one of the greatest pullup shooters the sport has ever seen.) And despite very poor length (just a +2 WS), VanVleet has continued to force defensive turnovers in the league. The same spatial processing and ball-tracking that helped an anthropometrically lacking VanVleet post a 4.4 OREB% in his junior year continues to power his +1.2 dTOV impact (by 6-factor 4y RAPM). 

FVV’s weight and overall engagement have helped him reach neutral+ dTS influence; I believe Mallory can attain mostly similar outcomes if and when given the opportunity on basketball’s biggest stage.

Similar to FVV’s pullup-3 chucking (chucking being used in the most non-derogatory way possible), Haliburton’s exceptional spatial awareness has shown at the NBA level through his own superpower: risk-averse rim passing.

The intersection Mallory shares with these two cognitive basketball greats is extremely powerful: why can’t Mallory develop his own cognitively-linked superpower?

For all of the reasons outlined above, Mallory is likely my favorite long-term basketball prospect on the planet. But he certainly does not come without his flaws. 

The biggest caveat to the Mallory profile is that he is old. You might have caught on to this by noticing I’ve only used U21 and non-senior class/age qualifiers in the queries above. Born in October 2005, Mallory is over a year older than the bulk of his rising sophomore peers. He’s a whopping five months older than Tanner! Age vs production is the paradigm for any and all predictive analysis; Mallory’s significant freshman year production would signal a much higher upside if he were true freshman age. 

My other consequential concern revolves around Mallory’s usage: his impressive two-way profile hasn’t been sufficiently stress-tested. When compared to similarly skilled and productive NBA success stories, Mallory almost always lags behind in either usage or playmaking load. Mallory’s ancillary production was special last season, don’t get me wrong. But producing on the margins while managing 20 USG% and 24 AST% is a completely different thing than maintaining that production on 26 USG% and 28 AST%. The stamina required to sustain ancillary production with a usage bump is insane. The capacity to do so implies even greater ancillary capabilities when scaled down (as almost everyone is in the NBA). This is why Tyler Tanner is so special! Fred VanVleet’s junior season likely belongs on the Mount Rushmore of upperclassmen seasons in the Bart era because of how he was able to soak up usage and simultaneously dominate the margins. Junior year FVV had an era-adjusted 3.7 A/TO on 35 AST%, while forcing defensive turnovers and rebounding on both ends. (Every single time I read over his profile, it becomes even more incomprehensible that he was undrafted.) Accepting such a creation load also usually harms prospects’ shot diet: 3s are a lot harder to create off the bounce vs when spotting up.

Luc clearly outlined what Tanner’s path to NBA impact is: two-way turnover margin dominance. Mallory’s is likely something similar. It’s only fitting that our two favorite small guards fit neatly into a query alongside the NBA king of this mold.

Tanner’s vertical athleticism, shown in dunks, blocks, and 2pt scoring, and superb feel/shooting/physicality indicators explain why many of Draft Twitter’s sharpest analysts are exceedingly high on him (to the dismay of seemingly everyone else). VanVleet’s uniqueness is also spotlighted through this format–his playmaking and turnover aversion should catch your eye. I’m eagerly waiting for Mallory to find a way to distinguish himself from these two titanic statistical profiles. (He might very well be a usage leap away from FVV regen status.)

I feel cautiously optimistic about Mallory’s ability to scale up. Upon the exodus of Virginia’s super-senior guards, Mallory seems poised to take over the starting point guard role next season. His PNR shot diet was encouraging: a .36 3PR/.53 FTR (!!!) scoring process is hopefully a sign of things to come as Mallory’s PNR volume will likely increase next year. Mallory’s contact creation is so vital for his scoring outlook; his FTR dramatically raises his scoring floor, especially given how poor of a 2P scorer he is and projects to be at the next level. There, the anthros are hard to overcome, especially if he continues to operate as a ‘finisher to draw fouls’. (It’s worth noting that in that 2023 Under Armor Circuit sample, Mallory was actually more efficient than the foot-taller Queen on 2s. In 16 games for Team Thrill, Mallory shot 66.2% inside the arc, but with just a .22 FTR.) 

It will be important to monitor how Mallory’s shot diet changes as his creation load presumably rises. His staggering rim:non-rim ratio makes a lot of sense considering his affinity for contact, and also is likely a function of his profile not being stress/usage-tested. Unlike similarly skilled guards, Mallory has not yet been forced to explore non-rim options at this stage of his NCAA career. That might very well change next season.  Mallory’s touch is also better than the indicators from his lone college season would have you believe. He doesn’t have the touch of a 77 FT% shooter. Over considerable pre-NCAA samples, Mallory shot 84% from the line! When factoring in his relatively poor display this season, the total sample still comes out to around 81%. I am confident he will have a better shooting campaign after a mildly disappointing shotmaking year as a freshman.

Basketball is a game featuring some of the largest humans on the planet, and there will always be extremely functional advantages that come with height. Yes, the long-term professional basketball outlooks of both Tanner and Mallory would undoubtedly be more favorable if they were taller. But despite Mallory’s height, his nexus of traits and production is rare enough to bet on, even though the rampant heightism of NBA front offices will probably keep him from an NBA court for at least a couple of years.