Yaxel Lendeborg and the Importance of Heuristics
Evaluating NBA Draft prospects is hard. Which archetypes should you prioritize? What physical traits should you look for? Can you reasonably project a prospect to score well? Will they shoot? Does it actually matter if the prospect shoots? Can they dribble? Do they have good feel? Do they play within the construct of a team? Will the prospect make an impact on defense? To what extent? How much should film matter versus stats?
*takes a deep breath*
Hundreds, if not thousands, of data points factor into every prospect evaluation, many of which we don’t consciously consider. These data points converge into a cohesive story that informs a prospect’s placement on our boards. Scouting, in a nutshell, is the practice of surmising the story that a prospect’s film, stats, measurements, surrounding context, etc., are telling you.
If that sounds daunting, that’s because it is. That’s why simplifying evaluations, when appropriate, is critical for my process. One does so using heuristics — rules of thumb that simplify complex decisions or judgments. Put differently, heuristics use a few data points about a prospect to form a reasonably complete evaluation.
Now, there are pitfalls aplenty when relying too heavily on heuristics. Read Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman if you want proof. But, there’s a reason we evolved heuristics as humans: they can be helpful! It’s no different for scouting NBA Draft prospects. I’ll show you what I mean.
Consider this former college basketball player.
Would you draft him based on the presented information? I wouldn’t, and I’m guessing you wouldn’t either. If I asked why you came to that conclusion, you’d cite the poor production and efficiency over a large sample of games. Without reviewing any film or advanced numbers, I think we’d all feel comfortable with that decision. Guess what, we’d be correct. Those statistics belong to none other than LaVar Ball when he played college basketball in the 1980s.
Without heuristics, you’d have to dive deep into Lavar’s film before definitively concluding that the NBA was not in his future. You would have to conduct similar thorough assessments for every draft-eligible player regardless of their minutes played, production, or anything else. Obviously, no one has ever operated in this way (this is why I’m always skeptical of self-proclaimed eye-test-only scouts). We can comfortably eliminate most players from draft consideration, like we just did with Ball without thinking twice, thanks to heuristics.
The Lavar Ball example demonstrates at a basic level how heuristics can apply in scouting. In this case, bad career production = bad prospect. Done. Case closed. However, we have to be more discerning when discussing prospects with actual NBA chances. That said, some evaluations are much easier than others…bringing us to Yaxel Lendeborg.
Lendeborg is a forward for Michigan by way of UAB and JUCO before that. He attended the draft combine last year, where he actually generated some first-round hype before deciding to return to school. At the combine, he measured at 6’8 1/4” without shoes and 234 pounds, with a 7’4 wingspan and 9’0 standing reach.
With that, time for pro-Lendeborg heuristic number one, courtesy of Chuck from Chucking Darts:
Wings with 7’2+ wingspans don’t grow on trees (I’m still shocked by how small this list is), and the hit rate is spectacular. So, great physical tools: check!
Now, pro-Lendeborg heuristic number two: incredible all-around production.
Analytics models loved Lendeborg last year at UAB to the point where he cracked the top 20 on some people’s boards. Going into this season, scouts rightfully asked how Lendeborg’s numbers would look at the Big Ten level. Well…pretty amazing, as it turns out.
There are no weaknesses here. Lendeborg’s efficiency from every spot on the floor is comically high. He takes care of the ball, generates steals and blocks, and his assist-to-turnover ratio keeps improving year-to-year. If his current ~20 BPM holds, this would be one of the greatest statistical NCAA seasons we’ve ever seen.
Now, pro-Lendeborg heuristic number three: his archetype. A dribble, pass, shoot, defend wing.
Had Lendeborg stayed in the 2025 Draft, downsizing to play the three in the NBA would have been more of a projection, as he was a 4/5 hybrid at UAB. Thankfully, Michigan deploys Lendeborg at the three, with Aday Mara and Morez Johnson Jr. acting as the two bigs in Dusty May’s system. As such, we’re getting a look at Lendeborg in his likely role at the next level, and it looks great.
Lendeborg has served as the perfect wing connector for Michigan on both ends of the floor. Offensively, the ball never sticks to him. Lendeborg’s court mapping is outstanding. He knows everyone’s location on the floor, and he uses that information to make quick decisions. But, what makes Lendeborg so good is that his skill level allows him to properly act on the quick decisions he makes. He’s a triple threat with the ball in his hands. He can use his handle to generate optimal shots for himself or improve passing angles. When he passes the ball, he can find open teammates through tight windows and give them easy looks. If no driving lanes or teammates are open, Lendeborg can rise up and shoot over defenders, even with a hand in his face. Put simply, good luck preventing Lendeborg from optimizing an offensive possession for his team.
Defensively, it’s the same story. Lendeborg can get down in a stance and harass multiple positions on the ball. He’s big enough to be a problem for interior players, too. Additionally, his length proves super functional on rotations, help-side blocks, and recoveries contesting shots at the rim. His verticality without fouling has become a real asset defensively, and I expect it to translate to the NBA. I can’t recall a time when Lendeborg has made a faulty gamble defensively or been out of position. He’s simply an incredible basketball player.
Unfortunately, there is one hair in the soup for Lendeborg: his birth certificate. With a September 2002 birthday, Lendeborg will be a 24-year-old rookie next year. Important heuristic number four: old prospect = less room for development. I don’t want to entirely eliminate the possibility of star upside for Lendeborg, considering his development curve and complete skillset. But, history says we shouldn’t count on it.
Let’s succinctly combine the four heuristics. Yaxel Lendeborg:
- Has an ideal physical profile (6’8, 230 lbs, 7’4 wingspan)
- Has an otherworldly statistical profile
- Has a complete skill set: dribble, pass, shoot, can make the right decisions quickly, and defend
- Will be old for a rookie at 24, likely capping his development trajectory
From these four premises, I’m concluding the following:
- Yaxel Lendeborg is a probable high-end playoff starter in the NBA. But, his age likely limits further upside scenarios.
Using a few heuristics, we have told a reasonably complete story about Yaxel Lendeborg. With so much time until the draft and more information yet to be revealed, I rarely draw formal conclusions about prospects in December. Cases like Lendeborg are the rare exception.
I view Lendeborg as a lottery-level prospect. I feel confident in my evaluation of the player, but the work with Lendeborg is far from over. I still have to contextualize Lendeborg within this draft class. How many players will I rank ahead of Lendeborg? It’s too early to say. But a reasonably complete evaluation of Lendeborg, aided by heuristics, will now serve as scaffolding as the rest of my board takes shape.
Tags: