Writing to me has a sort of purging effect. The thoughts rattling around in my head have to go somewhere, or I’ll just keep yammering about Brandin Podziemski’s role transferability to anyone who will listen. So, in this article, I want to break down how I analyze pro players and attempt to fit them into different roles with different scales of responsibility.

First things first, let’s start with the simplest tenet.

Role Scaling

I don’t mean to go full “two-way turnover economy ecosystem engine” word salad on you, but scaling is a core principle of basketball on all levels. “Can I ask this player to do more?” is a question constantly asked, and it’s often the simplest way to identify emerging talent.

Let’s look at a recent example of role scaling benefiting both player and team. In 2024, I wrote about Nickeil Alexander-Walker as an emerging role player talent for the Minnesota Timberwolves. I’d highly recommend reading that to contextualize his growth, but here’s the skinny: NAW was a 25-ish MPG bench player for a contending Wolves team, asked to knock down off-ball shots and defend on the perimeter with a small dash of on-ball self-creation. He was regularly beating the brakes off opposing bench players and translates well as a starter next to Anthony Edwards when called upon.

Slap the floor, hit your threes, and stay ready; it’s a role that many players have filled, but so few thrive at the level that NAW thrives. Not only did he post an elite Defensive Estimated Plus-Minus (D-EPM) in his two full seasons with the Wolves, but he continued to grow as an efficient scorer. His true shooting percentage was at the 6th percentile before arriving in Minnesota, climbing to the 48th percentile during his last year with the Wolves.

The Atlanta Hawks wisely identified NAW as a candidate for role scaling. It is a big leap going from above-average bench player to above-average starter, but GM Onsi Saleh was confident that NAW could do it. And boy was he right. NAW more than doubled his PPG as a Hawk from the previous season with Minnesota, netting himself a Most Improved Player award in the process. He did this without sacrificing efficiency; NAW shot better outside the arc, inside the arc, and from the free throw line, finishing with a 53/40/90 2PT/3PT/FT shooting split. The defense wasn’t sacrificed either, as NAW continued to thrive on the perimeter against top options.

NAW’s transformation was partly due to scale, but also to the second pillar of pro scouting.

Role Transformation

There is no case of 1:1 role transference. If you stay on the same team, rosters change, and roles change alongside them. If you change teams, new dynamics are at play, forcing roles to shift. In the case of Nickeil Alexander-Walker, the Atlanta Hawks identified his on-ball scoring ability as something that could be transformed.

In his final season with the Wolves, 29.6% of NAW’s half-court possessions were direct ballhandler actions (pick-and-roll, dribble handoffs, off-ball screening actions, isolation). In terms of points per possession on those four actions, NAW was 15th percentile in PNR, 16th percentile in handoffs, and 43rd percentile off screens. His percentiles on the eight total isolation possessions aren’t worth mentioning due to sample size. It’s the profile of an off-ball wing. But for those with eyes to see, the potential for role transformation was there alongside role scalability.

With the Atlanta Hawks this year, NAW’s on-ball possession rate jumped to 53.9%. That’s an 82% increase in on-ball usage while shouldering an extra load of minutes played. And he improved across the board: 37th percentile in PNR, 74th percentile on handoffs, and 69th percentile off screens. On top of all this, he got out in transition more often, and increased his efficiency against unsettled defenses.

Not only did NAW scale his usage in a big way, his usage also underwent a significant shift in a way that transformed the Hawks. Atlanta’s points per 100 possessions improved by 7.6 points with NAW, a team-leading mark. Those are the rewards you reap when you correctly identify a pro player ready for a new role.

It’s nothing new for Atlanta. NAW was the blueprint for role scaling and role transformation on offense. The year before that, Atlanta hit the lottery of defensive role scaling.

Dyson Daniels was a highly regarded prospect for the New Orleans Pelicans, but they could hardly be bothered to unlock him. Through two years in the Bayou, Daniels started 27 total games, playing an average of 20 minutes a night. Unlike NAW, there was no clear evidence that he could contribute to a winning team. Unless you looked closely—as I did in December 2023.

Daniels dominated on the defensive end as a bench player and consistently handled top matchups when called upon. Much like the offensive end, the jump from bench player to starter is a big test, as a primary perimeter defender like Daniels will consistently face top options instead of secondary bench options. In essence, Daniels had days off in New Orleans where he didn’t have to contain the best of the best. Atlanta was willing to bet that Daniels didn’t need days off, and could play against top options every single night.

And boy, were they right. In his first season as a starter, Daniels posted steal numbers we haven’t seen since the 1980s, won Most Improved Player, finished runner-up in the DPOY race, and made first-team All-Defense. He consistently wrecked top options and became one of the most valuable “possessionmaxxing” players in the league. Atlanta correctly identified the new meta; winning the turnover and rebounding battle is everything, and a guy who nets you three steals a game is worth his weight in gold.

Here you have an excellent example of role scaling with minimal transformation. Atlanta didn’t ask Dyson to do anything differently on the defensive end, just to do more of it and against better players. But the offensive game was a much different story, an unheralded success story of role transformation.

In the first season in Atlanta, Dyson was the complementary guard alongside Trae Young. With Young’s defensive shortcomings (some pun intended), Daniels was a hand-in-glove fit on the defensive end. Offensively, not so much. Trae’s extreme ball dominance and pick-and-roll frequency didn’t work for a player like Daniels, who brings little value as a floor spacer. There was some room for Daniels to operate as a guard-guard screener, utilizing his downhill game, but Young largely wanted to run 1-5 actions that put Daniels in a bad position. Atlanta certainly took notice, and as they prepared for the post-Trae Young era, they prepared for a dramatic role transformation.

Much of the impetus behind the Trae Young deal was the emergence of Jalen Johnson as a legitimate offensive engine—another example of dramatic role scaling we won’t get into yet. But essentially, Atlanta wanted to get out and run, and to create a diversified attack where cutting and secondary ball-handling were priorities around Johnson. That fit Daniels to a T, and it only got better after Young was traded for CJ McCollum, who was a huge part of Atlanta’s second-half turnaround.

McCollum made his Atlanta debut on January 11th, and from then on, Daniels’ offensive role transformation was in full effect. It’s jarring to compare the Young-centric Daniels usage to his usage after McCollum’s arrival. Let’s look at the stats.

In 2024/25, Daniels’ breakout campaign and debut year with the Hawks, 31% of his half-court usage came via spot-ups. The jumper was passable, generating 1.058 PPP on standstill shots, but the drives were abhorrent. Daniels drove off the catch 49.6% of the time, generating a ghastly 0.666 PPP. In the post-Trae world, that spot-up usage went down to 27%. Though the jumper abandoned him entirely, with 0.818 PPP on standstill shots, the drives transformed entirely. Daniels generated .913 PPP, a much more acceptable mark, while still driving 45.5% of the time. He was encouraged to be patient and to utilize his floater instead of going into turbo mode off the catch to capitalize on Young’s gravity.

The spot-up changes were notable, but it was the shift in on- and off-ball usage that struck me. Daniels’ cutting frequency, an efficient part of his game, went from 10.9% to 16.5%. His pick-and-roll ball handling declined from 15.4% to 8.1%, but the efficiency went from 0.867 PPP to 1.25 PPP. Daniels’ usage as an on-ball screener went up from 5.4% to 7.7%, again with an efficiency jump from 0.889 PPP to 0.947 PPP. He was also asked to crash the glass more often, and they reaped the rewards; Daniels’ offensive rebounding percentage went from 5.1% to 7.8%, and he continued to post strong putback numbers.

Atlanta’s strategy for Daniels’ offense was surprisingly simple: crank up the stuff you’re good at, and do less of the things you struggle with. It was transformative for their offense and for Daniels. In 24/25, Atlanta’s offense was 1.2 points per 100 possessions worse with Daniels on the floor; in 25/26, they were 6.2 points per 100 possessions better with Daniels on the floor.

Head coach Quin Snyder’s new starting lineup of McCollum, NAW, Daniels, Johnson, and Onyeka Okongwu posted a +21.4 net rating down the stretch and turned the season on its head. Heading into the All-Star break, Atlanta had a 26-30 record; they finished 46-36 to place sixth in the East, and were the only team to take multiple games off the NBA champion New York Knicks in the playoffs.

All due to brilliant role scaling and role transformation.

Cutting Both Ways

Nickeil Alexander-Walker and Dyson Daniels are excellent examples of positive role scaling and role transformation on both ends of the floor. But scaling in a positive direction isn’t always how things go. In a supremely talented league, teams often find themselves wondering if they can get more out of a player by asking them to do less. While it’s far more difficult, both on an interpersonal and a schematic level, it has produced some brilliant results.

Perhaps the most notable recent example is Aaron Gordon. A high draft pick by Orlando, the Magic hoped to turn Gordon into a primary offensive option with ancillary defensive skills. The Denver Nuggets traded for him with the opposite in mind.

With the Magic, Gordon had a 21.7% usage rate in his four full seasons as a starter. Not exactly heliocentrism, but he was relied upon more than he should have been. His points per shot attempt ranged between 104.1 and 108.8 in those years. The Nuggets said, “Hey, we’ve got Nikola Jokic; you don’t need to be doing all that.” Gordon’s usage dove to 16.4% after joining Denver in a 2021 deadline deal, and his points per shot attempt jumped to 114.9. The year after that, he stayed under 20% usage with a 121.2 PSA mark, and in the 2022/23 championship season, Gordon was up to 20.1% usage with 123.5 PSA.

While adjusting his offensive scaling and transforming his role, Denver used that conserved energy to empower Gordon on the defensive end, turning him into a 93rd percentile D-EPM player in the championship season. Gordon’s rotational defense was key to Denver’s aggressive defensive scheme, which made the lumbering Jokic a blitzing or at-the-level screen defender by using his fast hands and relying on Gordon to cover up anything that got past him. This mindful shift from an on-ball, offense-first player to an off-ball, defense-first player was key to Denver’s first title in franchise history.

It’s not the only time that a drastic shift in scale and role led to a championship. Once upon a time, Brook Lopez was a high-usage offensive post hub for the Nets and remains their all-time leading scorer. Lopez was an 18.6 PPG scorer over his nine years in Brooklyn, registering a 26.0% usage rate. Despite his reputation as an offense-first player, Brooklyn’s defense was better with Lopez on the court in six of nine seasons; the offense was better in six of nine seasons as well.

After an unsuccessful stint with the Lakers, the Milwaukee Bucks had an idea. What if we completely transformed Brook Lopez’s offensive scaling, made him a defense-first guy, and turned him from a post player to a floor spacer? In seven seasons with the Bucks, Lopez scored 13.0 PPG with a 17.2% usage rate, far below the marks he was accustomed to. He also turned into a pure floor spacer; Lopez made 187 threes in his first season with Milwaukee after making 249 in the first 10 seasons in the league.

With the offensive responsibilities falling to Giannis Antetokounmpo, Khris Middleton, and later Jrue Holiday, Lopez was able to dial in on the defensive end of the floor. He posted career highs in shot-blocking rate over his first two seasons in Milwaukee, becoming the anchor of a championship-winning defense. After nobody wanted Brook Lopez, the post-up offensive hub, everyone was searching for a Brook Lopez who could anchor the defense and space the floor.

Lopez’s teammate, Jrue Holiday, is an example of a player who went through several iterations of role scaling and transforming. A high-usage two-way player for the Process 76ers, New Orleans identified him as someone who should be taking more playmaker responsibilities and shooting more threes. It turned him into one of the best two-way point guards in the sport. Then DeMarcus Cousins got to town, and he scaled down offensively into a third option who was pass-first and tasked with floor spacing for the Anthony Davis-Cousins duo. Then Cousins and Davis left over the next couple years, and Holiday returned into a 1B-type scoring option alongside Brandon Ingram, albeit with a more refined passing game.

The Milwaukee Bucks saw Holiday’s ideal role as a tertiary playmaker/scorer and primary point-of-attack defender. When acting as a third option who slaps the floor defensively in 2017/18 and 2018/19, Holiday led the Pels in on/off impact by a comfortable margin. So they asked Jrue to play the same role alongside Giannis Antetokounmpo and Khris Middleton.

Results? A championship in his first season with the team. Holiday acted as a primary passer to set up Giannis, Khris, and their other shooters, while consistently locking up top perimeter options. Holiday’s ability to scale down the scoring while ratcheting up the defensive intensity showed an ability to adjust his scaling and role on the fly.

Almost as if to flex, Holiday underwent another drastic transformation with a new team to win a championship immediately. Jrue was traded to the Boston Celtics before the 2023/24 season, joining a team with an established offensive hierarchy between Jayson Tatum, Jaylen Brown, Derrick White, and Payton Pritchard. Kristaps Porzingis, another defense-first arrival, slotted in above Holiday in that hierarchy. The former All-Star point guard, used to having the ball in his hands, slid to sixth in usage rate as a Celtic. They asked for two things: defend your ass off, and knock down catch-and-shoot jumpers.

And it worked like a charm. Holiday continued to have an elite on-off impact, providing valuable floor spacing for the high-usage starters while defending at an absurd rate for a 33-year-old. Once again, Holiday scaled down offensively to scale up defensively, and transformed his offensive role to accommodate a new team. He hoisted another Larry O’Brien as a result.

Of course, there are negative examples. The Golden State Warriors asked Jonathan Kuminga, an elite athlete who believed himself to be a primary scoring talent, to focus on defending his tail off and rebounding the ball. Though unspoken, his response was a resounding “no”. Kuminga, 23, remains unsigned deep into the offseason. As a generally positive dude, I don’t want to dredge up other examples and besmirch others, but it’s not hard to understand why scaling down and transforming roles doesn’t always pan out.

NBA players have, for most of their pre-NBA careers, been the best talent on their teams. Whether in high school, college, or abroad, they’re used to being the guy. Someone telling you “we’d like you to not be the guy” doesn’t always fall on friendly ears. There are also talent questions; sometimes, a player isn’t capable of that role change, and is conditioned to be the player they have always been.

Summing Up

After a busy offseason, every single NBA team looks different. Even the Golden State Warriors, who made no trades or new signings, will be adjusting to new roles. Role scaling and transformation are happening all the time, on all teams, and recent history has shown us that those who nail those two pillars of pro scouting win big. Teams will spend this offseason attempting to execute new role scales and transformations in the hope that tweaking what each player does can unlock something new.

We will have breakouts and disappointments alike; when you see that happening to a player, ask yourself what the scaling looks like and whether the role transformed. And if those things aren’t to your liking, can this player and the team stand to benefit from further adjustments to scaling and role? Now, hopefully, you get a glimpse of what I’m thinking about all the time when the rest of the noise becomes quiet.

The post The Pro Scouting Philosophy appeared first on Swish Theory.

But when you look beyond the seemingly limitless upside and attention that group naturally generates each season, some of the more interesting prospects are the ones NBA teams already know quite a bit about.

Returning to college for another season is a path more players are taking for various reasons, and it’s making modern draft classes look a lot different. For some players who return, the decision is about expanding their role and showing they can handle responsibilities they weren’t given previously. Others already have a clear NBA archetype, but need another year to develop particular skills that could change how teams view their ceiling. Then there are productive college players who have already put up numbers, but need to prove that production is indicative of NBA translation, sometimes against higher-level competition, and that they’re more than just great college players.

That’s what makes the upcoming draft cycle particularly interesting. This is a class that features quite a few first-round and early second-round graded talents who will spend another season at the collegiate level. That doesn’t mean those players don’t have high ceilings or can’t become stars at the next level. Development is never linear. But their pathways to improving their stock over the next year look different.

Many of these players have already received feedback from NBA teams throughout the pre-draft process before ultimately opting to return to school, along with plenty of informal feedback throughout their careers. So rather than simply ranking the best returning prospects, let’s categorize them by the actual bet they’re making by going back to school.

The Role Expansion Bet

Sometimes returning to college isn’t about addressing a weakness or improving in one particular area. Sometimes it’s simply about earning more minutes and usage and proving that your production can scale. It’s the difference between being a player with perceived scalable upside and someone who has actually done it.

Braylon Mullins is perhaps the best example of that.

As he enters his second season at UConn, Mullins has already shown plenty of NBA-translatable skills, particularly as a shooter. And in the upcoming season, he’s not going to be asked to reinvent himself to become a top-tier pick. In fact, had he been a one-and-done prospect, he likely would have been a first-round pick in the 2026 NBA Draft.

Instead, the opportunity he’ll have this season to become a primary offensive piece is what could really improve his stock. There’s a meaningful difference between projecting as a high-level complementary shooter and being viewed as a perimeter player who can create offense and assume significant responsibility. That’s the additional value another collegiate season can provide.

This is the chance for players like Mullins to take on the type of role they envisioned when they were highly recruited prospects. He’ll have an opportunity to move higher in the offensive hierarchy and prove that some of the skills he showed in flashes as a freshman can hold up in a much greater context.

Other players in similar situations include Amari Allen at Alabama, Trey McKenney at Michigan, Matt Able at North Carolina, Dame Sarr at Duke, Ivan Kharchenkov at Arizona and Neoklis Avdalas at North Carolina. All of them have opportunities to shoulder larger loads and showcase more of their skill sets.

The question isn’t simply whether they can get better. It’s whether that increased responsibility reveals a different level of upside, or shows that these players are actually less capable of shouldering that type of load than previously believed.

The Skill Development Bet

For another group of returners, the NBA role is a little bit more clear. That’s not to put a player in a box or be naive enough to think they can’t develop into a different type of player at the next level. The question for this group is whether they can develop the skills necessary to complement the ones that are already starting to show promise.

Malachi Moreno is a great example of this type of bet.

The Kentucky center already possesses several attributes that make him intriguing at the NBA level. He’s got great size, good feel as a passer and can impact the game around the basket in multiple ways. NBA teams already buy into many of those things, too. Moreno is a player who potentially could have gone late in the first round of the 2026 NBA Draft.

Another college season gives him a chance to become stronger, more physical and more dominant than he was last season. It’s not necessarily about adding a bunch of net-new things to his game. A lot of complementary players don’t need to become superstars to stick at the next level. It’s about what they can do to impact winning.

For Moreno, the development he shows this season could be the difference between being viewed as a useful NBA big and one with significantly more upside.

Sometimes even small improvements in a few core areas can change everything. It’s not about suddenly developing the ability to knock down shots from 30 feet or becoming a primary ball-handler as a big. For a player like Moreno, improvement in strength, processing, decision-making and functional playmaking within a scheme could be all it takes. It’s doing things more consistently and at a higher level.

Tounde Yessoufou at St. John’s, Patrick Ngongba II at Duke, Flory Bidunga at Louisville and JoJo Tugler at Houston are among the other returners whose stock could change considerably through targeted development.

They don’t need to become completely different players. They need to become better versions of the players NBA teams already think they can be and continue to show growth in the areas that made them intriguing in the first place.

The Production Translation Bet

This is probably the most difficult bet of all, because when a player has already proven he can be really good at the college level, there’s risk in changing scenery or continuing to produce without showing meaningful improvement.

Juke Harris is a name that falls into this category as he enters his first season at Tennessee after proving himself as a productive player at Wake Forest. Unlike a young prospect still waiting for an opportunity, Harris doesn’t need this upcoming season to show he can put up numbers.

What he will have the opportunity to do is produce in the SEC against high-level competition and prove those numbers actually matter, are translatable and aren’t simply empty statistics. There’s an important distinction between being a great college player and a great NBA prospect. Throughout the history of college basketball, plenty of players have landed on national player of the year lists and broken records from a production standpoint without their games translating to the NBA.

The professional game presents different spacing and different types of athletes, and even highly productive college players are often asked to play much smaller roles when they reach the league. That’s especially true for scorers, who likely won’t receive the same volume of shots early in their NBA careers.

That’s why this bet is about proving that production can translate across a multitude of different roles and frameworks.

For Harris, continued scoring production would certainly help, but improved shooting consistency and accuracy, greater defensive impact and the ability to influence games without dominating possessions could be more impactful for his draft stock than simply increasing his points-per-game output or taking more shots.

Milan Momcilovic at Kentucky, Thomas Haugh at Florida and Tyler Tanner at Vanderbilt are other players who fall into this category. Each of their situations is different and represents a different version of the same bet, but it’s not simply about producing more. It’s about producing in ways that could change how NBA teams value them and showing how that production can translate to a future NBA role.

That’s ultimately what makes this group of returners so fascinating. Another season in college doesn’t automatically make someone a better NBA prospect. In some cases, going back another year introduces additional questions. Players get older, expectations change and NBA teams get another full season to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.

But that’s what makes it a bet.

These players have an opportunity to fundamentally change how NBA teams see them, for better or worse. Some will thrive with another season and significantly improve their stock, while others could find themselves in a worse position than they were a year earlier. By the time the 2027 NBA Draft arrives, the players who make the most of that additional season could find themselves in an entirely different tier than where they stand today.

The post The Three Bets That Could Define the 2027 NBA Draft’s Top College Returners appeared first on Swish Theory.

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.

The post Simulating Size: Tyler Tanner and Chance Mallory appeared first on Swish Theory.

For second-year players, Las Vegas serves an entirely different purpose. After a full season of NBA practices, strength programs, film study and, in many cases, G League development, these players are no longer trying to prove they belong in the league. They’re trying to prove they’re ready to contribute. Summer League becomes an opportunity to showcase growth, demonstrate a more polished skill set and make a case for meaningful rotation minutes entering the new season.

One strong week in Las Vegas won’t completely change a player’s long-term outlook, but it can offer valuable insight into who is beginning to put everything together. With that in mind, here are 10 second-year standouts who have looked ready to earn a more consequential NBA role heading into the 2026-27 season.

Tre Johnson (Washington Wizards)

The Wizards are expected to take a significant step forward this season. While much of the conversation surrounding Washington will center on No. 1 overall pick AJ Dybantsa, along with veterans Trae Young and Anthony Davis, the internal development of the roster will be just as important to the team’s success.

One player with a real chance to make a significant leap is Tre Johnson, Washington’s premier draft pick from a year ago. After a promising rookie campaign, Johnson looks poised to become an even more dynamic scorer in Year 2. From his first Summer League appearance, he looked every bit like one of the best players on the floor, showcasing the effortless shot-making ability that gives him legitimate 20-point-per-game upside at the NBA level.

Exactly what Johnson’s role looks like on a nightly basis remains to be seen, especially with several established creators already on the roster. But whenever those opportunities come, his ability to create offense for himself should make him an impactful piece of Washington’s rotation.

Will Riley (Washington Wizards)

Johnson wasn’t the only Wizard to stand out in Las Vegas. In fact, Will Riley may be one of the most underrated young players anywhere on Washington’s roster.

Through his first two Summer League games, Riley established himself as one of the event’s most prolific scorers while knocking down an incredibly high percentage of his 3-point attempts. His shot-making was impressive, but perhaps even more encouraging was how naturally his game fits alongside the roster Washington is building.

Riley still has room to add strength and continue rounding out his game, but his positional size, length and shooting ability project seamlessly alongside jumbo creators like Dybantsa and the rest of the Wizards’ young core. If his Summer League performance is any indication, Riley has a legitimate opportunity to emerge as an important bench contributor this season.

Liam McNeeley (Charlotte Hornets)

The new-look Hornets will be one of the more fascinating teams to follow this season after trading away LaMelo Ball. Charlotte is entering a new era built around Kon Knueppel and Brandon Miller, creating new opportunities for young players like Liam McNeeley to establish themselves.

McNeeley isn’t expected to be one of Charlotte’s primary scorers, but through his few Summer League appearances, he showed he can impact the game in a variety of ways. Long regarded as one of the better shooters in his class dating back to high school, McNeeley also displayed impressive feel as a passer and secondary playmaker, averaging more than three assists per game during the opening stretch in Las Vegas.

For McNeeley, that’s the key to carving out a long-term NBA role. His shooting will always be his calling card, but continuing to find ways to impact winning beyond simply making shots will ultimately determine how large his role becomes with the Hornets.

Chaz Lanier (Detroit Pistons)

The Pistons made it clear this offseason that improving their perimeter shooting was a priority. After a breakthrough regular season and a playoff appearance, Detroit added proven shooters like Isaiah Joe and Kevin Huerter to better complement Cade Cunningham.

Chaz Lanier could quietly become part of that equation in Year 2.

An older prospect who spent five seasons at the college level, Lanier once again showcased why he’s regarded as one of the better volume shooters in his class. He has been one of the most impressive volume perimeter shooters of the summer and has proven he can shoulder plenty of offensive responsibility at this level.

Lanier isn’t expected to play a major role for the Pistons as a sophomore, but there’s a clear pathway to earning meaningful minutes. If he can continue spacing the floor, hold his own defensively, make quick decisions as a passer and consistently knock down open shots, Detroit has every reason to trust him as a complementary piece on a playoff-caliber roster.

Egor Dёmin (Brooklyn Nets)

The Nets are still waiting for one of their young prospects to truly establish himself as the face of the franchise’s future. After selecting five players in the first round a year ago and following that up by landing Mikel Brown Jr. in the 2026 NBA Draft, Brooklyn has no shortage of intriguing young talent.

While Brown may have the clearest path toward becoming the organization’s cornerstone, Egor Dёmin shouldn’t be overlooked.

With his unique combination of size, ball-handling and playmaking ability, Dёmin immediately stood out during his limited Summer League action. He looked a step ahead of the competition, controlling the game with his pace while showing flashes of the versatility that made him such an intriguing prospect entering the league.

If Dёmin can carry that momentum into high-impact NBA minutes that lend to winning this season, it won’t be long before he’s on the brink of truly breaking out as a star. One year from now, he could very well be viewed as one of the league’s most promising young players.

Joan Beringer (Minnesota Timberwolves)

The Timberwolves made one of the splashiest moves of the offseason by acquiring LaMelo Ball to pair with Anthony Edwards, a move that also required parting ways with Julius Randle and reshaping parts of the roster. While much of the attention has focused on Minnesota’s revamped backcourt, Joan Beringer quietly put together one of the most impressive Summer League performances among second-year bigs and should spark conversations about the frontcourt rotation.

Beringer likely won’t share many minutes alongside Rudy Gobert, but what he showed in Las Vegas suggested he’s already capable of filling the backup center role while potentially positioning himself as Gobert’s long-term successor. That’s no small task considering Gobert’s defensive résumé, but Beringer flashed many of the same traits that have made the veteran so valuable for playoff teams. Through his first Summer League appearance, he was an elite rebounder, protected the rim at a high level and showed more offensive polish than many expected.

He’s still not the stretch big many NBA teams covet, but Minnesota’s system has long shown it can thrive with a non-shooting center. If Beringer continues progressing, there’s a clear path to meaningful rotation minutes this season whenever Gobert rests or misses time, with the potential for an even larger role in the years ahead.

Adou Thiero (Los Angeles Lakers)

Speaking of roster overhauls, few teams changed more than the Lakers. Outside of Luka Dončić and Austin Reaves, much of Los Angeles’ core rotation looks different entering the season, creating opportunities for young players to establish themselves over the course of an 82-game schedule.

While rookie Cameron Carr impressed during Summer League, second-year wing Adou Thiero may be just as important to the Lakers’ long-term outlook.

The biggest question surrounding Thiero remains his perimeter shooting, and through his first two Summer League games, that jumper still looked like a work in progress. But everything else that makes him intriguing was on full display. His athleticism, defensive intensity, transition play and ability to finish around the basket consistently impacted winning, even when the shot wasn’t falling.

For a Lakers team trying to prove it can compete around Dončić for years to come, the development of players like Thiero matters. If he embraces an energy role, becomes a disruptive defender and continues thriving in transition alongside one of the league’s best playmakers, there’s a very realistic pathway to meaningful rotation minutes this season.

Noah Penda (Orlando Magic)

Penda entered the league with plenty of intrigue following the 2025 NBA Draft, but after spending much of his rookie season developing behind the scenes, he arrived in Las Vegas looking like one of Summer League’s biggest surprises.

Through his first two appearances, Penda showcased far more than just reliable spot-up shooting. He created offense for himself, knocked down movement threes, looked comfortable attacking with the ball in his hands and consistently made the right play. His passing flashes stood out, he rebounded at a high level and showed the versatility teams covet from modern jumbo wings.

The Magic have spent the past few seasons pushing their chips toward the middle in pursuit of becoming a legitimate championship contender. Players like Penda could quietly become an important part of that equation. Whether it’s helping secure regular season wins or eventually carving out a complementary playoff role, his Summer League performance suggested he may be ready for a much larger opportunity than many expected.

Cedric Coward (Memphis Grizzlies)

There’s a legitimate argument that Cedric Coward was almost too accomplished to even be playing in NBA Summer League after the rookie season he put together. While his shooting efficiency wasn’t where he’d like it to be during his return to Las Vegas, the rest of his game more than made up for it.

In his limited Summer League appearances, Coward rebounded at an elite level for his position, showcased outstanding playmaking ability and once again proved why his defensive versatility is so highly regarded. Even during stretches when the jumper wasn’t falling, he still controlled games in a variety of ways.

Perhaps the biggest takeaway was simply how comfortable he looked. There were moments where Coward appeared to be operating at a completely different level than everyone else on the floor. Despite some uneven shooting splits, he consistently looked like one of the best players in the building.

The Grizzlies may not be expected to contend immediately, but Coward has all the tools to emerge as one of the league’s premier second-year players. Alongside teammate Cameron Boozer, he gives Memphis another foundational building block capable of leading the franchise into its next era.

Khaman Maluach (Phoenix Suns)

Maluach looked understandably raw during his rookie season on a Suns team focused on winning immediately, limiting his opportunities to develop through consistent NBA minutes. Entering Year 2, however, the outlook feels very different.

He may not open the season as Phoenix’s starting center with Mark Williams on the roster, but there’s a realistic path for Maluach to earn that role before the year is over. He still has moments where his processing lags behind the speed of the game and there are defensive rotations he’ll continue learning, but the flashes have become increasingly difficult to ignore.

During his time in Las Vegas, Maluach dominated the glass, scored efficiently, showed legitimate shooting touch from beyond the arc and consistently impacted the game as a rim protector. Just as importantly, his energy was contagious, elevating the intensity of the group whenever he was on the floor.

If he continues refining the processing side of the game and becomes more comfortable within Phoenix’s defensive scheme, Maluach’s sophomore season could look dramatically different from his rookie campaign. Few players from the 2025 draft class appear better positioned to make a significant Year 2 leap.

Summer League is rarely about proving who can score the most points. For second-year players, it’s about demonstrating growth, showing that the game has slowed down and proving they’re ready for a larger role when training camp arrives. While there is still plenty of offseason left before opening night, these 10 players have already strengthened their cases to become meaningful contributors during the 2026-27 season.

The post Second-Year Standouts: Which Sophomores Look Ready for a More Significant NBA Role? appeared first on Swish Theory.

These aren’t necessarily players expected to average 25 points per game or contend for NBA Rookie of the Year. Instead, they’re first-year players who could be asked to fill meaningful rotation minutes for teams with aspirations of making deep postseason runs. That responsibility may look different depending on the roster. It could be eight dependable minutes in the middle of a tight game. It could be drawing an assignment against one of the opposing team’s top scorers for a stretch. It could be providing energy as a rim-running big, cleaning the glass, or simply giving a veteran starter a reliable breather.

With that in mind, there are also a handful of cases around the league where rookies will be expected to play significant roles in playoff pushes and even emerge as one of their team’s top three scorers as early as Year 1.

Whether these rookies ultimately start or come off the bench, NBA Summer League represents the first opportunity to begin adapting to the NBA’s speed, physicality and style of play. For playoff-caliber teams, that process matters. Every meaningful possession a rookie can handle by April is one less burden on an established veteran.

What’s particularly interesting about the 2026 NBA Draft is not just the talent at the top or the depth throughout the class, but the number of first-round picks who could play real roles on bonafide playoff-caliber teams from Day 1. This isn’t about players like Darius Acuff, who could put up impressive numbers for the Sacramento Kings, or Cameron Boozer, who could be a borderline All-Star in his first season for a Memphis Grizzlies team that isn’t expected to be in the playoff mix. Those players may have larger individual workloads, but they aren’t stepping into the same team context.

Instead, this list focuses on organizations that should be in the playoff picture barring unforeseen circumstances. Nearly one-third of the league fits a description of a team that has postseason expectations while also having selected a first-round rookie capable of contributing immediately. Some will be counted on as rotation pieces from opening night. Others may begin the season in smaller roles before becoming valuable depth as the year unfolds. Either way, these are the 10 playoff-caliber teams whose rookie classes could quietly play an important role in shaping the 2026-27 season.

Oklahoma City Thunder

Rookies: Bennett Stirtz, Aday Mara

The Thunder entered the offseason facing a looming financial crunch, ultimately moving on from Isaiah Joe and Aaron Wiggins in an effort to manage the salary cap. Even before those departures, there was already a sense that Oklahoma City would need to rely on inexpensive rookie contributors as it looks to return to the NBA Finals after falling short last season.

That helps explain why the Thunder targeted two experienced, multi-year college players in Bennett Stirtz and Aday Mara. Rather than swinging on long-term upside, Oklahoma City prioritized prospects capable of contributing sooner rather than later.

Mara appears to have the clearest path to meaningful minutes, particularly if injuries surface in the frontcourt again. His size, rim protection and interior presence could make him a valuable second-unit contributor whenever his number is called. Stirtz, meanwhile, offers some of the shooting, shot creation and offensive versatility the Thunder lost with Joe and Wiggins no longer on the roster. Even if his role isn’t massive from opening night, there should be opportunities throughout an 82-game season for him to provide meaningful bench production.

It’s also worth mentioning Thomas Sorber, who technically enters the season as a rookie after missing all of last year with a torn ACL. While he wasn’t part of the 2026 draft class, he’ll effectively be another first-year frontcourt player the Thunder could lean on if injuries become a factor.

San Antonio Spurs

Rookies: Tarris Reed Jr., Jayden Quaintance

Jayden Quaintance’s availability remains one of the bigger questions entering the season as he continues recovering from lingering knee issues, but Tarris Reed Jr. was one of the clearest need-based selections of the first round.

One of San Antonio’s few weaknesses last season was its lack of a dependable backup center behind Victor Wembanyama. Reed arrives after proving himself as a productive, winning player at the college level, bringing physicality, strength and athleticism to the position.

While Luke Kornet provides veteran stability, Reed offers a different dimension that could prove valuable in certain matchups. He’s still a rookie with plenty of development ahead of him, but there should be situations throughout both the regular season and the playoffs where his skill set fills a need for a Spurs team with postseason aspirations.

Los Angeles Lakers

Rookies: Cameron Carr

The Lakers underwent significant roster turnover this offseason. Luka Dončić and Austin Reaves remain the headliners, but much of the supporting cast looks different heading into the new season.

Even after adding depth pieces, Los Angeles still has questions on the wing, creating an opportunity for Cameron Carr to carve out a role. Carr is an athletic wing with intriguing defensive upside despite his slender frame, while also possessing the ability to score at all three levels.

He won’t be asked to carry the offense on a veteran team built around established stars, but the Lakers will need reliable bench production throughout the season. Carr has the tools to become an energy piece capable of defending multiple positions, running the floor and providing instant offense when called upon.

Golden State Warriors

Rookies: Yaxel Lendeborg

The Warriors are still weighing options to improve the roster and make another championship push in the final years of the Stephen Curry-Draymond Green era. Golden State has already been connected to several big names, including LeBron James, but the Jimmy Butler injury still looms as one of the biggest swing factors of the season.

While Butler could return at some point, especially later in the year or in the playoffs, his absence leaves a massive void on the wing and in the frontcourt. That type of player is incredibly difficult to replace, given his salary slot and two-way impact, which is why drafting Yaxel Lendeborg was so important.

Lendeborg will be 24 years old as a rookie and brings championship experience from the college level. He began his collegiate career playing the five before developing into more of a perimeter-oriented forward who can operate with the ball in his hands. That makes him an ideal fit for Golden State’s system and current roster needs.

He should be ready to play real minutes immediately, and the Warriors may end up leaning on him more heavily than nearly any other rookie in this class. It’s still fair to wonder whether Golden State is a true contender as currently constructed, but there is no question the Warriors should be competitive in the Western Conference, and Lendeborg could have a direct impact on how much success they ultimately have.

Atlanta Hawks

Rookies: Zuby Ejiofor, Kingston Flemings

The Hawks were one of the big winners of the draft, landing two strong pieces for both the present and the future.

Kingston Flemings is a dynamic point guard with tough shot-making ability and defensive upside. In this new era without Trae Young, he has a clear path to becoming Atlanta’s long-term starting point guard. His two-way impact and ability to play within a structured system were evident as a freshman in Kelvin Sampson’s program at Houston, which should have him well-equipped for the next level.

He’ll still have plenty to learn early in his career, but Flemings should immediately be a key piece of the Hawks’ backcourt rotation.

Zuby Ejiofor, meanwhile, gives Atlanta a different type of rookie contributor. He’s a high-motor transition threat who plays with physicality and athleticism, though his exact NBA role will be interesting to track. He’s a bit undersized to play center full-time and doesn’t necessarily have a traditional perimeter skill set, even if he can knock down 3-pointers with a reliable level of accuracy.

For Ejiofor, it’s all about finding his spot in the rotation and establishing what kind of player archetype he’ll become at the NBA level. Still, he’s a winning player with experience and an NBA-ready frame. At minimum, he gives the Hawks another rotation piece who thrives in the open court and has the ability to impact the game on both ends.

Philadelphia 76ers

Rookies: Labaron Philon Jr.

After trading away Jared McCain at last year’s deadline, the Sixers made a clear pivot toward acquiring draft capital while creating more financial flexibility to retain Quentin Grimes, who ultimately still ended up with the Los Angeles Lakers. That left Philadelphia in a situation where two of its core rotation guards from the start of last season would no longer be on the roster.

However, the pick acquired from Oklahoma City in the McCain trade ultimately turned into Labaron Philon Jr., the guard who fell further than almost anyone in the draft. A two-year college player, Philon is a dynamic scorer and extremely underrated passer who could have gone in the lottery, but instead landed with the Sixers at No. 22.

Philadelphia then turned around and traded for Jaylen Brown, building what is now one of the best rosters in the Eastern Conference, with the possibility of still pursuing another major piece like LeBron James. Given the year-over-year changes in the backcourt, Philon projects as a quality bench contributor who can facilitate, create offense and score behind what is shaping up to be one of the NBA’s best starting lineups.

Toronto Raptors

Rookies: Allen Graves

The Raptors have been one of the big winners of the summer, bringing back Kawhi Leonard in a splashy trade that puts them right back into contention in the Eastern Conference. But before that move, Toronto drafted Allen Graves, one of the more interesting swing players in the class.

Graves was a sixth man at Santa Clara, but also one of the best players in the conference and an analytics darling throughout the pre-draft process. There is certainly a world in which his game doesn’t translate quite as well as some expect, especially if the athleticism fails to pop at the NBA level or if certain skill areas aren’t as polished against better competition.

At the same time, the advanced data suggests Graves could become a phenomenal NBA player and one of the steals of the draft. For the Raptors, the short-term appeal is clear. His versatility, positional flexibility and ability to impact the game in different ways should give him a real role as a rookie.

That role will likely be more complementary and niche off the bench early on, but as injuries happen and different playoff matchups emerge, don’t be surprised if Graves becomes an important piece for Toronto.

Charlotte Hornets

Rookies: Christian Anderson, Hannes Steinbach

The Hornets have been one of the most surprising teams of the offseason. After having one of their best years in recent franchise history, nearly making the playoffs after a fun late-season push, Charlotte made the NBA Play-In Tournament before ultimately falling short.

Then, the franchise opted to trade LaMelo Ball to the Minnesota Timberwolves, sparking a new era built around Kon Knueppel and Brandon Miller. From there, the Hornets also traded away Miles Bridges, but they added two quality rookies along the way who could help this team immediately.

Christian Anderson is a poised point guard who has operated offenses at a high level internationally and collegiately despite being undersized. He’s a smart, cerebral, winning player who can score and create for others, and with Ball no longer in the equation, Anderson should have a real chance to earn significant point guard reps in Year 1. There will be struggles at times, as this is a completely different level of basketball, but if anyone can make the adjustment quickly, Anderson can.

Steinbach is not a direct replacement for Bridges, but he’s a phenomenal rebounder who should have plenty of opportunity in Charlotte right away. The German frontcourt prospect could be the franchise’s long-term starter in the frontcourt, bringing the ability to set strong screens, clean the glass and score in a variety of ways. If Steinbach’s 3-point shot comes around, this could become one of the best rookie duos in the league this season.

Charlotte should expect quite a bit of production from both rookies in Year 1.

Washington Wizards

Rookies: AJ Dybantsa

The Wizards have made it clear they’re ready to start winning now. During the 2025-26 season, Washington acquired Anthony Davis and Trae Young before extending Young on a max contract, while also exploring a long-term extension with Davis. At the same time, the organization’s young core has gained valuable experience. Alex Sarr, Bilal Coulibaly, Bub Carrington, Tre Johnson, Keyshawn George and Will Riley are no longer simply intriguing prospects; they’re players expected to contribute to winning basketball.

Now, the Wizards add AJ Dybantsa, the No. 1 overall pick in the 2026 NBA Draft and a prospect with legitimate face-of-the-franchise potential.

As talented and deep as Washington is on the wing and in the frontcourt, there’s no question Dybantsa will be featured as one of the focal points of the offense from Day 1. The Wizards have assembled a playoff-caliber roster, but just how high they climb in the Eastern Conference standings could very well depend on how quickly Dybantsa adapts to the NBA.

If he delivers a Rookie of the Year-caliber campaign, Washington has the talent to finish comfortably in the top six of the East. If he struggles, or is simply an average rookie, the Wizards could instead find themselves battling through the Play-In Tournament. That level of influence speaks to both Dybantsa’s talent and just how heavily Washington plans to lean on him from the start.

Utah Jazz

Rookies: Darryn Peterson

Peterson may very well be the best guard prospect to enter the NBA Draft in the last decade. With elite size for a guard, scoring ability, athleticism and defensive tools, he possesses the type of ceiling that could eventually produce scoring titles, MVP consideration and perennial All-NBA appearances. His landing spot only makes things more intriguing. Like Washington, Utah accelerated its timeline with in-season moves, highlighted by the acquisition of Jaren Jackson Jr.

Peterson joins a roster featuring established star Lauri Markkanen, rising guard Keyonte George, last year’s top-five pick Ace Bailey and one of the bigger, more versatile rotations in the league.

The Jazz expect Peterson to step into a starting backcourt role immediately, and there’s every reason to believe he’ll have every opportunity to flourish. Summer League production should always be taken with a grain of salt, but combined with his pedigree and the player he was entering the draft, it’s easy to envision Peterson emerging as the Rookie of the Year favorite and ultimately the best player in this class.

Utah has assembled a playoff-caliber roster, and if Peterson hits the ground running, the Jazz have enough talent to skip the typical Play-In progression altogether and push for a top-six seed in an incredibly competitive Western Conference. That possibility is exactly why Peterson is one of the most important rookies on any playoff-caliber team entering the 2026-27 season.

The NBA Summer League doesn’t determine whether these rookies become stars, but it offers the first glimpse into how quickly they can help winning teams. For organizations with playoff aspirations, every reliable rotation piece matters, making the development of this rookie class more important than ever. Whether it’s a spot-up shooter, a defensive stopper or a future franchise cornerstone, these first-year players could quietly shape the 2026-27 playoff race more than most realize.

The post Why Rookie Production Could Shape the 2026-27 Playoff Race appeared first on Swish Theory.

With the 2026 NBA draft in the books, all eyes turn to Summer League to see what players have been working on in their early days with new teams. Here’s one item we’ll be watching closely for each team’s top rookie. Find our full Big Board here.

Atlanta Hawks: Kingston Flemings’ rim finishing

There’s a lot to like about Flemings’ game, but his finishing at the rim is an early-career concern. As our low report noted, Kingston shot just 53% at the rim in conference play. Additionally, can he learn to draw fouls on these rim attempts? A crafty, ultra-high-feel player, Kingston might already be prepared to show new finishing tricks this summer.

Boston Celtics: Chris Cenac’s shot diet

Cenac displayed good outside touch for a player of his size at Houston. However, he had a heavy preference for taking catch-and-shoot looks from deep two rather than three. How quickly can Boston correct his shot diet to better fit their three-heavy system?

Brooklyn Nets: Mikel Brown ancillary production

Although the pitch for Mikel is easy, a high volume shooter with some passing and handling chops, can he contribute elsewhere on the court? Our low report highlighted his poor stock and rebound rates, which hopefully look better this summer, especially with more time to recover from injuries which limited him at Louisville.

Charlotte Hornets: Hannes Steinbach’s passing

While he did not have the best assist volume, our high report noted Washington’s team passing improved when Steinbach was on the court, perhaps greasing the wheels even without the assists. How will his passing look with his new team – is there untapped potential?

Chicago Bulls: Caleb Wilson’s defensive impact

While his stock rates were very good, Wilson’s defensive on-offs were mediocre for someone of his talents. In the Summer League setting, it will be interesting to see if Wilson locks in and contributes like his potential indicates. Our low report noted a tendency to take plays off and skip second efforts…will that be the case again in low-stakes play?

Cleveland Cavaliers: Meleek Thomas’ inside the arc scoring

Meleek does plenty of good as a perimeter player, particularly as a passer, taking calculated risks, and as a catch-and-shoot three-point shooter. However, his inside-the-arc shooting percentage of only 45% is a huge red flag – will this look better in the Cavs’ system? We might see hints of what he’s been working on to correct this imbalance in his game in the Summer League tape.

Dallas Mavericks: Morez Johnson’s scoring burden

Morez’s improved outside touch was essential for national champion Michigan, but he still took relatively few three pointers, and rarely had self-creation reps. Is there more scoring upside than meets the eye with Johnson? Will he be able to take advantage of the favorable matchups and  open looks that will be the norm when playing with Cooper Flagg?

Denver Nuggets: Trevon Brazile’s continued feel progression

Many wrote off Brazile as an NBA contributor considering his apparent poor feel for the game he displayed in his early NCAA seasons. However, he fit snugly into his role with Arkansas this past season, becoming one of the best play finishing athletes in the country. His turnover rate plummeted, despite creating more rim attempts. Will we continue to see him play within his role, or will the issues come back against better opponents?

Detroit Pistons: Ebuka Okorie’s passing role

Okorie took on an enormous scoring load for Stanford as a freshman, which likely led to a depressed assist rate. However, just what is Okorie’s ceiling as a passer? Is he someone you want initiating every time down the floor, or will he be too score-first? Does his ultra-low turnover rate in college mean capacity for more passing? Summer League might begin to answer these questions.

Golden State Warriors: Yaxel Lendeborg’s three-point volume

Swish Theory is confident in Lendeborg’s value, our number six ranked player with little dispersion of opinion among our 10 rankers. However, will his role look more like this one at UAB, where he spent more time as a driver and enforcer inside the arc, or will he keep building on the three point volume he showed at Michigan (to great success). Given the Warriors’ habits, high three point volume is the assumption, but Yaxel’s malleability makes the details of his role an open question.

Houston Rockets: Bruce Thornton’s rim pressure

Swish Theory was very high on Thornton, ranking him #23 with some placing him much higher. Our low report mentioned an inability to get into the paint without a screen, and his rim to non-rim ratio was extremely low with a predilection for deep pull-up twos. However, Thornton was highly efficient when he did get there, perhaps hinting at untapped rim volume. Summer League might begin to reveal these answers.

Indiana Pacers: Braden Smith’s physical presence

The Pacers’ 38th pick, Braden Smith has been one of the best drivers of measuring 5’10.25’’ and 167 pounds at the Combine. The relative draft capital spent by Indiana suggests they believe Smith can still be acceptable enough defensively to see spot floor time. Will he, however, prove overwhelmed by Summer League size and strength?

Los Angeles Clippers: Keaton Wagler, offensive focal point

Keaton Wagler is one of the few draft picks going to a team with a worse offensive roster than he had in college. While Wagler proved more than capable as a three point shooter and ball mover, he was surrounded by strong play finishers where many assists came off of simple passes. Will he be able to scale up to force the defense into rotation more than he did in college? This will be a big test for that question.

Los Angeles Lakers: Cameron Carr’s passing

Carr is far from an offensive conductor, and is an older rookie, but still showed some flashes of difficult reads, mainly on the move. Do the Lakers even care to utilize and develop this skill, or is he good enough of a play finisher it doesn’t matter for their system? In Summer League, role change is more important to note than volatile raw box score stats.

Memphis Grizzlies: Cameron Boozer, proven winner

Boozer has been a winner at every level of basketball he’s played, part of why he was Swish Theory’s consensus number one prospect this draft. It can be difficult for even top picks to get their bearings in Summer League, with little time to practice together and most playing in new schemes. Will Boozer continue to assert his will, regardless of this chaotic context? While many future All Stars did not in their first Summer League, Boozer’s skillset is potentially versatile enough to hit the ground sprinting.

Miami Heat: What kind of guard is Ryan Conwell?

Conwell went ten spots higher than Swish Theory’s board, but it’s always tough to bet against a player in Miami’s development system. Conwell’s weakness to some might be strengths to others. His assist volume and three-point accuracy were highly volatile this season, as he had eight <25% three point shooting games and eight games with one or zero assists. I’d assume Miami will give him all the green lights, but they might be able to find more passing upside, too.

Milwaukee Bucks: Brayden Burries showing us the special

“Show me the weakness.” Even our low report noted Burries’ versatility in college. But does he have an area of the court he can dominate and prove he has the same upside of players taken around him? As an old freshman (almost 21), the pressure is a little higher on Burries than his much younger counterparts to hit the ground running.

Minnesota Timberwolves: Isaiah Evans’ rim protection

Evans made a massive leap as a shotblocker his sophomore season at Duke, providing legitimate help-side rim prohtection, utilizing his 97th percentile standing reach as a shooting guard. Is this a trait which will carry over with a major leap in competition? Will his lithe frame limit his shotblocking?

New Orleans Pelicans: Kobe Bufkin, reclamation project

The Pelicans have zero players on their Summer League roster who were on the Swish Theory Big Board. More interesting is what former #15 pick Kobe Bufkin will look like on the court. Despite never getting his sea legs in the big league, Bufkin shot light out in the G League this past season – 56% from two (8.5 attempts per game), 42% from three (7.0 attempts per game), and 90% from the line (4.0 attempts per game under the G League’s 1-FT rule). Those splits are impressive regardless of comp – can he keep the hot shooting up?

New York Knicks: Tyler Nickel’s defense

The Knicks’ top draft pick, Jack Kayil (taken 39th), was the highest selection of anyone not on Swish’s Big Board. However, their #47 draft pick, Tyler Nickel was taken one spot later than our rank. Nickel’s deep shooting is legit, with his shot chart extending many feet behind the line. Nickel went late due to his lack of well-roundedness at Vanderbilt, a subpar athlete with only 36 rim attempts on the season 1.2 assists per game. However, he plays hard and blocks the occasional shot at 6’6’’ in socks. If he can lock in as a defender, NBA minutes might be there given the rarity of his deep spot up shooting at wing size.

Oklahoma City Thunder: Aday Mara and Bennett Stirtz synergy

The Thunder was largely in line with the Swish Theory Board, where we had Mara #10 and Stirtz #12. Mara’s upside is tied to him being a passing hub, one of the best among all bigs in the country, and at 7’3’’. Stirtz was heavily on-ball at Iowa, but would benefit immensely from getting easier reads created for him. As bench players to start their career, Stirtz’s quick-release shotmaking could be greatly enhanced by Mara finding him in a timely manner.

Orlando Magic: Izaiyah Nelson’s physicality

Nelson was taken right around where Swish had him, and with wide agreement on him looking more like an end of bench player. The big question mark is around Nelson’s applied physicality: his free throw rate skyrocketing this year, his first in the American conference where his team, South Florida, was dominant. But he’s very skinny for a likely-power forward, and neither does his experience against mostly mid major competition inspire belief in this translation.

Philadelphia 76ers: Labaron Philon’s offense-defense usage

Philon saw a sharp increase in his offensive burden this season following his freshman year. His defensive effort was replaced by a heavy dosage of pick and roll operation, #14 in the country in PNR ballhandler volume (possessions finished, including on passes). While this surely was part of the appeal for the Sixers, on a team with players who need the ball, Philon will have to ratchet back up that effort on the defensive end. Very lightweight for an NBA player at 176, and a mediocre athlete, Philon will instead have to rely on effort and technique.

Phoenix Suns: Koa Peat’s playmaking

Peat’s fell on Swish Theory’s Board with each new iteration over the 2026 cycle, with little disagreement in putting him in the 20s by the time of the draft. However, he’s still a one-and-done freshman who is a big wing with some ball skills. Peat is another one whose college team could beat his Summer League squad, meaning he may receive some meaningful playmaking reps this Summer League. Can he flash the creation upside – particularly as a drive and kick player – that had our team first excited about his NBA prospects?

Portland Trail Blazers: Yang Hansen, post operator

With no players on the Summer League roster on Swish Theory’s Big Board, we look to last year’s top pick, Yang Hansen, for analysis. Yang had a rough year in the big league, but had little opportunity to stretch his legs as a post hub, which had to be a major factor in their decision to take him so high in the 2025 draft. Can Yang have the game slow down for him, in what should be a favorable environment for the 7’1’’ center just turned 21? With little competition for touches, expect Yang to have his moments as a distributor.

Sacramento Kings: Darius Acuff’s defense

Swish Theory had Acuff ranked low, at #17, largely due to his poor defensive outlook. Acuff is not without tools on that end, a good athlete, but struggled mightily to be positive at the college level. The Kings desperately need Acuff to hit the ground running as their potential lead guard, and him improving even a little bit defensively could go a long way. Check to see how much he’s buying in on that end early on in his career.

San Antonio Spurs: Tarris Reed’s passing

Reed took a sudden leap as a passer in UConn’s smooth-running offense this season. However, how much was due to Hurley’s ability to optimize roles? Reed was not making any majorly complex reads, but went from one of the worst distributors in college basketball as an underclassman to more than capable of keeping the gears running at UConn. Which one will be closer to the truth at the NBA level?

Toronto Raptors: The Toronto Wrecking Balls

The Raptors have been very much in sync with Swish Theory’s drafting philosophy, taking our #3 prospect Collin Murray-Boyles with the #9 pick last year and our #9 prospect Allen Graves at 19 this year (both of our ranks being far above consensus). The two have very similar profiles: big wings or small bigs with some dribble-pass-shoot ability, but mostly devastating defenders who create countless stocks. Expect Toronto to have the best defense in Summer League when both are on the court.

Utah Jazz: Darryn Peterson passing

Peterson followed up his 2 assist, 8 turnover Summer League debut with a 12-assist passing clinic in game two. Despite being our consensus #2 prospect, opinions still varied across our team regarding just how good of a passer Darryn is, or can be. He showed more promise pre-NCAA, but passing with Kansas left a lot to be desired (it certainly was not the optimum context). Perhaps more time healthy has given Peterson more stability as a passer, with benefits immediately obvious the second he puts on a Jazz uniform.

Washington Wizards: AJ Dybantsa’s on-ball scaling

There was a high degree of disagreement over Dybantsa’s rank on the Swish Theory Board, finishing as our #4 prospect. Some of this relative pessimism revolves around AJ’s role optimization: his upside is largely tied to him being on-ball often, but shot diet of deep twos and mediocre assist-to-usage ratio leave some lingering questions around how that looks in practice. Considering he’ll be playing off of Trae Young, Dybantsa will certainly have to scale down situationally. Will the Wizards have AJ initiate every time down right off the bat in Summer League? Or are they already preparing for him to become more of a spot up shooter and/or cutter?

The post ’26 Summer League Rookie Watch List appeared first on Swish Theory.

I’ll take a 30,000 foot view of the prospects in Golden State’s range, and explain why I’d take that player or pass on them. For this exercise, I’m omitting players I am 100% convinced will be gone by 11, such as Brayden Burries, Mikel Brown Jr., and Kingston Flemings.

Going through prospects being mocked to Golden State’s range, I played “Draft or Pass” with each potential Warriors pick:

Draft: Morez Johnson Jr. (Forward/Big, Michigan)

It’s been some time since I’ve been able to run enough tape for a full draft board. But I do my best to keep tabs on things and watch games when I can. The top four is clear between Cam Boozer, Darryn Peterson, AJ Dybantsa, and Caleb Wilson. After that, the top players are up for debate. I’m certain that the fifth-best player in this class, Morez Johnson Jr., is going to be available at 11. If the Warriors don’t jump on the chance to draft Morez, I am going to be quite upset.

A lot of Morez being under-hyped comes down to anchoring bias and context. Johnson was a four-star recruit who didn’t crack the top 25 on the major platforms, and was a medium-usage bench piece as a freshman at Illinois. Transferring to Michigan put him in a bigger role, starting all 40 games, but he fell under the shadow of Yaxel Lendeborg. Consensus seems to be that Yaxel is the better draft prospect, an assumption I strongly disagree with.

A powerfully built forward-center type, Johnson put on a show at the draft combine. He is 6’9″ with a +6.5 inch wingspan and a standing reach just shy of 9′. Weighing in at 250 pounds, Morez has an NBA-ready body, but doesn’t sacrifice athleticism; he posted a strong max vertical of 39 inches, and ran the lane agility drill faster than all but one forward. Johnson’s hands are 10-inches wide, longer than Kawhi Leonard’s. On athletic profile alone, Morez is lottery-worthy.

It’s the production that seems to get lost in the shuffle. A prolific defender first and foremost, Morez flashed a lot as an above-the-rim finisher who is learning to expand his range. Johnson managed to draw lots of fouls while cashing 78% of his freebies. Making 36% of his midrange looks and 34% of his threes gives some hope that he can be a threat outside of the paint. We’ll get to the defensive impact in a bit, but here’s a basic glimpse at underclassmen who have matched Morez’s level of defensive production and scoring touch:

Pretty good company, if you ask me. Match this production with elite athleticism, and you’ve got a top prospect.

His uncanny timing as a rotational defender makes him a slam dunk for the Warriors. Yes, they need athletes who can grab boards and finish lobs, but if you can’t make consistent rotations, you will fail in Kerr’s defensive system. (i.e. Kuminga, Jonathan) Morez makes excellent reads as a defender and has a knack for high-pointing the ball for blocks, but doesn’t need to make the big play to have impact in a rotation.

Morez checks the athleticism box, the production box, and fits the current needs of the team along with the system. Mike Dunleavy Jr., make it happen.

Pass: Nate Ament (Wing/Forward, Tennessee)

This one terrifies me. Ament, a consensus five-star recruit and the No. 4 prospect in the nation (who flirted with 1.1), had a disappointing year in Knoxville. The highest recruit in Tennessee history, Ament was billed as a tall shooter who can put the ball on the deck to create his own shots and finish around the rim. Unfortunately, he didn’t quite hit the efficiencies evaluators wanted to see.

At 6’10” with solid all-around athleticism, Ament can get perimeter shots whenever he wants. The problem is that he failed to convert them, making 33% of his looks with the Vols. The volume wasn’t inspiring either at 7.9 threes per 100 possessions.

Mostly, he took midrange jumpers, which represented 61% of his two-points attempts; those went in at a 37% clip. Not exactly green-light territory in the NBA. Most concerning is the rim finishing: on non-dunk rim attempts, Ament shot 46.5%, a ghastly rate for a near seven-footer. He didn’t wow with dunks either, punching the ball home just 13 times.

Ament did draw plenty of free throws and convert them at a strong clip, boosting his efficiency overall; but, I don’t see it translating to the next level.

He’s too slight of frame at 210 pounds, doesn’t have short-area movement skills that impress, and is more reticent towards contact than you’d like. Referees don’t reward gangling guys who fall down going backwards; some forward momentum has to be involved.

Add in a meh assist/turnover ratio and a lack of defensive impact and you’ve got a player more theoretical than practical. A former top prospect who had no bankable skills as a play-finishing forward has no floor. I’ll leave you with this: here’s a list of all first-round picks with a rim finishing percentage under 55% and a three-point percentage under 35%:

Almost every successful NBA player on this list is a defense-first wing or a guard. Ament doesn’t fit any of these profiles. Hard pass on Patrick Baldwin III.

Draft: Ebuka Okorie (Guard, Stanford)

Talk about a late riser. Through the majority of the NCAA season, Ebuka Okorie projected as a late first to early second round prospect. Now that athletic testing and measurements are in, Okorie is flying up the board, possibly as high as No. 9 to the Mavericks. But if Morez Johnson is off the board and Okorie is sitting there, Mike Dunleavy Jr. should ensure that Okorie stays on the Peninsula.

Size is a big hurdle to overcome here. Just shy of 6’3″, Okorie is below the usual threshold you’d want to see for a lottery guard. In this class full of productive short guards, it’s not a huge knock, but it historically does not pan out. So why do I believe Okorie can hack it?

First things first, the arms impressed scouts at the NBA Combine. Okorie measured in with a 6’8″ wingspan, putting his physical dimensions squarely in the De’Anthony Melton zone. With huge 9″ hands, he effectively has oars for arms, a huge asset for him on both ends of the floor.. As Andre Iguodala once said, “these motherfuckers are crazy”.

Offensively, Okorie was a rim pressure monster. He took nearly eight shots per game at the rim, hitting a respectable 56% of them, along with eight dunks, an important benchmark for his size. Generating over 40% of your shots at the rim out in half-court sets is absurd, and if he pairs the finishing with a healthy diet of lay-offs to bigs/cutters and kickouts to shooters, he has legitimate primary scorer upside.

To reach that level of upside, Okorie needs counters, and he certainly has those. The pull-up three-point shooting was strong, and he’s comfortable making teams pay for going under on ball screens. The Stanford PG converted 42% of his midrange attempts, showing good floater touch and pull-up ability to counter drops. He needs to work on beating early help and outright doubles, but if he’s pressuring the defense enough to create those, it’s a tick in his favor.

Okorie has mastered ball handles, shows incredibly fast quick first step burst, has historic rates in turnover suppression and shots at the rim with indicators to potentially be a great 3pt shooter, and has one of the highest impact indicators via BPM of any prospect. When you consider his scalability show to help initiate the offense at the high school level to become lead option walking bucket who led an ACC with Cameron Boozer in it, you can envision where Okorie can complement Steph Curry on the court together and to stagger going forward.

Defensively, Okorie has the potential to be a monster at the point of attack. He used his long arms to his advantage, creating havoc on the perimeter. I was impressed with his motor given the usage he shouldered offensively for Stanford. Playing next to Steph Curry, he’ll surely have more energy to use on the defensive end of the floor. I do have some questions about his schematic fit in a funnel-based system, but I believe he has the court feel to understand how to angle his defensive assignments and play in rotation.

Okorie isn’t without question marks. A dual small-guard backcourt isn’t ideal in the NBA, but the post-Steph era has to be considered, and he has the upside to take the reins in future seasons. It’s a narrow path to navigate, making a pick for the short and long term, but the easiest answer is to draft a great talent and go from there. Okorie is that talent.

Pass: Bennett Stirtz (Guard, Iowa)

Look, it’s no knock on Stirtz that I’m passing here. He was extremely productive at Drake before transferring to Iowa, where he remained a high-level offensive engine. Stirtz shoots well on and off the ball, is productive on drives, and keeps the ball moving in ways that benefit his teammates.

Here’s the problem: I see no way that he is a productive starter as long as Steph Curry is around. With Wardell as the face of the franchise, that team is his offense, and he is the ball-dominant guard. Stirtz needs to fit some sort of billing as an off-ball guard to make things work in the interim.

Stirtz is the same size as Okorie, but his wingspan is shorter. For an off-ball guard, he’s too short, not heavy enough, and doesn’t test out as an elite athlete. His defensive numbers are fine, but he’s overly reliant on gambling for steals and not good enough at moving his feet or leveraging his strength, so he doesn’t project to be a plus at the point of attack. That may matter less in Kerr’s defensive system, but it still matters.

The shooting box is certainly ticked. Stirtz has shot at high volume and with impressive efficiency throughout his career, as a player who moves well off the ball in rare instances when he isn’t dribbling. Theoretically, the catch-and-drive game would play well, and he could flow in and out of split cuts while stampeding closeouts. But the lack of size is another knock on him in the Golden State system; 6’2″ and 186 pounds doesn’t play well screening off the ball.

For many other teams, Stirtz is a great value in this range. But Golden State is already too small, not athletic enough, and has its lead guard taken care of with Steph. The Warriors need just about everything, but they don’t need a high-volume scorer of a small guard who looks to be a negative defensively.

Draft: Yaxel Lendeborg (Forward/Big, Michigan)

Sometimes, the mocks get it right. Yaxel Lendeborg has been mocked to the Warriors at 11 quite often, and for good reason.

Plain and simple, the Warriors need guys who can play from Day 1. They also need positional size, rebounding production, overall athleticism, and legitimate play finishers to capitalize off Steph Curry’s gravity. Yaxel Lendeborg checks all of those boxes.

Offensively, I’m quite high on Yaxel. He is an excellent rim finisher, putting home 67% of his non-dunk rim attempts, and can get above the rim with ease. The ability to put the ball on the deck has grown over the years. Yaxel has knocked down long twos and threes on volume and with efficiency for his career. I’m also impressed with the playmaking, as he’s cut his turnover rate for three straight years in D1. It’s unreasonable to think of him as a future top option, but he has a malleable offensive profile that will translate to Steph-centric ball.

It’s the defense that pushes the upside case for me. Lendeborg has a knack for high-pointing the ball, but doesn’t chase blocks, using his 240-pound frame and length to affect shots. The rebounding was maligned at Michigan, but he dominated the glass at UAB and was understandably deferential on the glass to his 7’3″ frontcourt mate, Aday Mara. I see no reason why he can’t be a plus rebounder at the next level. He’s experienced and rotates well, and will be a great understudy for Draymond Green as a big versatile defender and handoff connective playmaker with two-way feel for the game.

Production isn’t the only benchmark that Lendeborg clears with ease. At 6’9″ with a 7’3″ wingspan, Lendeborg is a nimble fridge; he’s ready-made to play NBA power forward and could move up to the five in the right lineups. While the vertical didn’t wow evaluators, his agility score was 92nd percentile amongst forwards, a skill that weighs heavily when you have his build.

I understand why Lendeborg’s age is a concern, as he’ll be nearly 24 on draft night. But the counter to that is you’re getting years 24-28 on his first deal, and years 29-32 on his first extension if things break well. That’s a very important part of the calculus for a team that is light on productive players and good contracts. While I do prefer his teammate, Morez Johnson Jr., Yaxel checks all the boxes for this pick.

Pass: Aday Mara (Big, Michigan)

Mara is the only of the three Michigan bigs I wouldn’t draft to Golden State. It’s not about production; he was an absurd shot-blocker, great rebounder, sound rim finisher, and has surprisingly impressive passing chops for a 7’3″ big. It’s not athleticism, either; despite his mammoth size, he tested quite well in agility scores, and you can see his wiggle on film.

Here’s the problem: his size, and not in the way that you think. There are 12 former first-round picks who were 7’3″ or higher, and they averaged 420 games played for their career. Rik Smits, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, and Shawn Bradley are the only ones who cleared 800 career games. The two current players who meet that criteria—Victor Wembanyama and Zach Edey—aren’t exactly bastions of health. Wemby being available for 73.6% of his regular-season games isn’t that bad, but Edey has played only 46.9%. When you’re that tall and that built, gravity works awfully hard on you.

Mara isn’t without injuries in his career. He suffered an ankle injury in the midst of his NCAA tournament run at UCLA, has struggles with respiratory problems, and has struggled with conditioning. Even if he had a clean bill of health, I do not trust players that size to play starter’s minutes over an 82-game season, let alone the playoffs. If another team takes the risk and reaps the rewards, good for them.

2nd Round Draft: Tamin Lipsey (Guard, Iowa State)

If there’s one thing Mike Dunleavy Jr. has done exceptionally well in his tenure, it’s finding productive role players in the second round and beyond. Quinten Post and Will Richard have given them strong minutes as young role players, and Pat Spencer was excellent down the stretch this past season. Tamin Lipsey is an obvious role player bet there for the taking with the 54th pick.

An All-Defense player in the Big 12 for three seasons, Lipsey averaged 2+ steals per game for all four years at Iowa State. He’s exceptionally quick on his feet, a demon getting around screens, and has very fast hands. Lipsey is a ready-made point-of-attack defender who can fill a slap the floor and get after it role from Day 1.

Offensively, the upside is higher than you think. He’s a decent three-point shooter, finishes well around the rim, and has taken real strides in the midrange to become an impressive long-two creator. Iowa State plays a pro-style offense that has prepared him well for the next level. Perhaps most importantly for Golden State, he’s a plus passer with an assist/turnover ratio over 3.0 as a senior. He can make his teammates better without back-breaking mistakes.

Is Lipsey a huge upside bet? No. But players in his mold, like Jamal Shead and Davion Mitchell, have found ways to be contributors on playoff teams in recent years. Another ball-handler to organize the bench, who will improve their defensive infrastructure, is a huge win late in the second round.

The post Warriors 2026 Draft Guide appeared first on Swish Theory.

But what if he didn’t get any better? What if he just had the ball more? Let’s dig into the numbers to see what’s really going on.

Let’s start with his box score numbers. 28.8 Points per game, 5.3 assists, and 7.0 rebounds per game. Those seem like pretty monstrous box score numbers on their surface, and they are career highs for Brown. However, if we look at his efficiency, we can see it’s below league average. He’s posted a 98 True Shooting+ this season. (Two percent worse than league average) That’s not great for a primary option.

You might say, “Well, he’s taking more difficult shots with Tatum out.” We can look at his Shot Quality, and it is lower this season. But if we look at his Shot Making, we can see he’s basically performing at the same level he’s always been as a shot maker. (Shot making looks at actual vs expected Effective FG% based on shot quality)

What about his passing?

He is averaging a career high in assists. This is another case of just having the ball more. We can see that he’s always been a below-average passer relative to how often he gets to run the offense. The graph shows that he hasn’t improved as a passer, he just has more opportunities. 

“Well, he’s asked to do so much. He’s one of the top two-way players in the league, and an elite defender.” He did make that claim. If only we had a way to look into it with analytics. Oh, wait, we do.

Matchup Difficulty looks at how good the players are that you’re being asked to guard, and Guarded On-Ball% looks at how often you are guarding the player with the ball. We can see that Brown is guarding average players at a below-average rate.

His overall defensive impact metrics have been fine over his career, but nothing special. Here are his career D-LEBRON numbers.

By everything I can measure, Jaylen Brown has not improved this year. He just has the ball more. That he is in the MVP race is absurd. That is the power of the Boston Media machine. The same machine that convinced the public that Marcus Smart should win DPOY a few years ago. LEBRON and EPM WAR are metrics that estimate a player’s overall value over a season. They work by combining their impact per 100 possessions and their total minutes played. This produces their WAR, or Wins Above Replacement. I averaged the two stats together and compared Brown’s average WAR to the other MVP candidates.

SGA – 17.7 (1st)

Jokic – 15.73 (2nd)
Luka – 15.2 (3rd)

Wemby – 13.6 (4th)

Brown – 7.0 (26th)

Brown is not in the same stratosphere as the other MVP candidates. The point of the article isn’t to tell you Jaylen Brown is secretly a bad player, he’s not. But when we look into advanced analytics, he has not improved in a meaningful way. He’s the same player he’s been for years. A low-end All-Star who is very good, just not great. 

The post Did Jaylen Brown get better this year? appeared first on Swish Theory.

Cameron Boozer is simply one of the most versatile offensive hubs to ever play the sport of basketball.

Players Boozer’s size aren’t supposed to be this skilled – between his reliable handle, high-level playmaking vision, sublime shooting touch, and all-around scoring versatility, this 6’9″ 250lb bull gracefully drives through china shops without breaking a plate, consistently creating good looks for his team with quick-processing decision making, on-ball advantage creation, and off-ball play-finishing gravity stretching from downtown to the rim.

Fresh off an All-Time great one-and-done Duke season, Boozer has proven elite traits since his development path from Columbus High School that could add up to a sum-of-its-parts offensive engine at the NBA level:

• Outlier Outlet Passing
• Efficient Scoring Versatility
• Connective Hub Playmaking
• Special Rebounding Instincts
• Knockdown Perimeter Shooting
• Quick Processing Two-Way Feel

Now that March Madness ended in an exciting-before-disappointing run, there’s finally a crack in the Boozer Twins’ perfect armor.

Evaluators can still write a Christmas Carole with the list of accolades that the Boozer twins (Cameron, Cayden) have accomplished on their run to this point, two of the biggest winners to ever play the sport:

4 Florida State Titles
3 Nike EYBL Peach Jam Championships
2 Team USA Gold Medals
1 High School Natty

and the ACC champion regular season + tournament trophies.

After finishing the season, Cameron Boozer adds AP Player of the Year to that resume while becoming the first player in NCAA history to win NABC Freshman of the Year, Big Man of the Year, and Player of the Year.

Cameron Boozer is the clear best bet #1 pick in the 2026 NBA Draft class

Boozer is the clear top prospect in an all-time draft class not due to some immeasurable talent or high-flying bounce, but due to his consistent team-first feel and efficient scoring versatility in every basketball situation he finds himself in on the court.

Carlos Boozer calls his son, Cameron Boozer, a “modern-day version” of Tim Duncan, via Marc Spears:

“You look at what Tim Duncan did. I’m not comparing Cameron to Tim Duncan, but he was another guy that wasn’t [athletically] a Kevin Garnett or a Tracy McGrady or a Kobe Bryant or Shaquille O’Neal. But you know what he did? He won five championships in that era [against] those players — the Kobes and the Shaqs, because of his IQ, because of his skill set, and because his team would follow him… That is who Cameron is. He’s a modern-day version of that… So. if you want to win, you pick Cameron.” – Carlos Boozer

One popular comp for Boozer has been Kevin Love, and for good reason; while the mobility of these two players and play-styles on the ball are quite different, there are a handful of outlier elite attributes in outlet passing, rebounding, three-point shooting, post-up prowess and an impressively high BPM impact rating that make the stretch-four prospect comparisons easy to make. Love was an even better rebounder in college than Cam, but was slightly less efficient as a scorer and was 4 percentage points worse as a 3pt shooter. One big difference, though, is Boozer’s playmaking talent being on another level (25% AST/14% TOV%) compared to Love’s score-first style (14% AST%/15% TOV%)

Love was a big time prospect in his own right as a next-level scorer, shooter, rebounder, play-finisher and all-time outlet passer. Boozer’s ability to do those things similarly well while combining that scoring gravity with his handle, vision, and two-way feel takes his game to another level, allowing him to make quick decisions, create advantages for teammates and generate good shots for his team consistently, is what takes his potential superstardom to an even higher level of a scoring creator than Love.
One huge skill separating these two prospects here is Boozer’s handle, refined enough to help him self-create so many of these opportunities without needing a teammate to create the advantage first, which is uncommon for a big man. That handle, with the added team-focused playmaking, creates a floor-stretching downhill scoring creator with offensive engine gravity.

Another popular comparison brings up aesthetic similarities to the Magic’s Paolo Banchero and peak Pistons Blake Griffin in things like role malleability, scoring versatility, short-roll and postup playmaking, downhill play-finishing, and free-throw drawing as a powerful dunking 6’9”+ 250lb tank who can operate both ends of a pick-and-roll. As far as the hype machine bringing up names like Tim Duncan and Nikola Jokic, it’s for glimpses of similarities in fundamental footwork, strong screening, team-first connective play, and general understanding of the game as old-school offensive hubs, like Duncan sleepwalking to 20-10-3-3 statlines and Jokic splashing otherworldly tough shots and diming unthinkable passes from nearly any spot on the floor.

None of these are one-to-one comps; just all-time great prospects and players with comparable roles, playstyles, and archetypes who Boozer can build off to impact the game in similar ways to the stars who walked before him, like an artist mastering their craft by studying the classic works of old before mixing up what they learned into something new.

Any franchise painting on an empty canvas should give Boozer the paintbrush and get out of the way.


The Film

Just to highlight Boozer’s position and role malleability, let’s look at some Duke tape to see how an NBA team can utilize him in a variety of Pick-and-Roll situations, without even getting to the one-on-one creation card he can pull out of his sleeve.

Boozer running pick-and-rolls on the ball shows his ability to attack mismatches with drives and find teammates for good looks.

Boozer spaces the floor from deep in Pick-and-Pops, utilizing his shooting gravity to knock down C&S threes and attack closeouts with pump-fakes and driving touch finishes, creating a lethal shooting threat compared to the average screening roll-man.

Boozer’s finesse in the paint from a variety of angles and force at the rim when rolling hard offers a versatile play-finisher compared to the average screening roll-man, not to mention his ability to playmake out of the short-roll.

The Data
(as of 03.19.26)

Averaging 23 PPG – 10 REB – 4 AST / 2 TOV – 1.5 STL, Boozer seems to fill up the box score consistently whether you think he’s having a good game or not. In his time at Duke, he racked up 68 Stocks (BLK + STL) to 57 fouls, a good indicator for defensive instincts forcing turnovers without fouling.

Recorded 2 games with 15 REB, 2 games with 14 REB, 5 games with 13 REB, another 5 games with 12 REB; Boozer knows a thing or two about crashing the glass in case of emergency.

His best scoring outings were as follows: vs. Arkansas scoring 35 PTS on 1.4 PPP, vs. Indiana State with 35 PTS on 1.6 PPP, vs. Wake Forest with 32 PTS on 1.4 PPP, vs. Stanford with 30 PTS on 1.4 PPP, and vs. Florida with 29 PTS on 1.1 PPP.

Seemingly endless stat indicators hint at Boozers’ scoring versatility, shooting touch, rebounding instincts, and two-way feel being positives that will translate to winning at any level.

Synergy Playtypes:

Excellent or very good all-around scorer in most situations:

Excellent, Versatile Scoring Profile:

Boozer quite literally scored 1.0-1.5 PPP in every playtype other than off screens and handoffs, thriving in Post Ups (1.1 PPP), Spot Ups (1.3), Transition (1.4), ISO (1.0), Put Backs (1.4), and Cuts (1.5).

For comparison, AJ Dybantsa scored 0.88 PPP in ISO, in the 58th percentile, and 1.0 on Spot Ups, the 64th percentile, and 0.77 PPP as P&R Roll-Man, 14th percentile. Dybantsa thrived as P&R Ball-Handler, Transition, Post Ups, and Put Backs, but still scored less efficiently than Boozer in all those playtypes, except for his Put Back Rate.

Just to further highlight his scoring versatility, Boozer scored 1.3 PPP as the Roll-Man in P&R on 60 poss, and scored over 1.0 PPP on 63 poss as the P&R Ball-Handler. Breaking that up into pops vs rolls: 31 times he pick-and-popped for 1.3 PPP; 25 times he pick-and-rolled for 1.4 PPP; 4 times he slipped the pick for 1.5 PPP.

Are you picking up on the absurdly efficient scoring in nearly every playtype in nearly every situation on and off the ball?

Other than handoffs, off screen, and less scripted plays that don’t involve his patented putbacks, he’s rated in Top-20 percentile in all 8 other playtypes recorded by Synergy.

Offensive Engine Indicators – Team Shot Creation via Boozer’s Scoring + Playmaking in ISO, Postup, P&R Ball-Handler

Efficient shot creation including passes shows the decision making and execution ability of a primary ball-handler, which could be one of the sports’ few measures reflecting a player’s feel for the game.

Boozer scored 1.0 PPP on Drives for Duke; he preferred to drive left, averaging 1.1 PPP on 67 left-side drives compared to 0.9 PPP on right-side drives.

When including passes as a pick-and-roll ball-handler, Boozer’s shot creation for his team becomes even more efficient at 1.08 PPP on 128 possessions, staying at 1.1 PPP on another 72 possessions where the defense “commits” to him as a P&R ball-handler.

Compared to Dybantsa, AJ created 0.93 PPP on 356 possessions as P&R Ball-Handler including passes, a roughly 0.15 PPP worse than Boozer’s 1.08 PPP.

Cam’s ISO PPP, including passes to teammates, rises slightly above 1.0 in efficiency; Dybantsa’s rises to 0.9 PPP.

Boozer encourages defenses to double him in the post; when including passes on postups, Boozer creates 1.1 PPP on 241 poss (84th percentile); he creates just under 1.0 PPP on 121 postups where defense “commits”, and he creates 1.1 PPP on 91 postups where defense sends a hard “double” (85th).

Dybantsa does well out of the post, creating 1.2 PPP on 128 possessions for his team, a slightly better mark than Boozer on half the volume.

Boozer’s scoring creation indicators are so promising, he could take being a versatile efficient offensive hub to a full blown ‘offensive engine’ level for a franchise if his skillset is maximized for its quick processing efficient shot creation.

All in all, these efficiencies across every play type as both a scorer and team-first shot creator show how malleable Boozer’s game can be at any level, thanks to his efficient shooting versatility and high-feel decision-making.

Here’s one look at Boozer’s processing from Swish Theory’s Ben Pfeifer, who calls Boozer, “the best post skip passing prospect he’s ever scouted”:

Shooting Touch Indicators

42% C&S 3P% on 91 3PA
41% Pull-Up 3P% on 34 3PA
65% eFG% on 296 Shots At The Rim
61% eFG% on 255 Layups
94% eFG% on 35 Dunks
(9/12 on Hooks)

Overall Scoring & Creation

1.18 PPP
67% TS%
62% eFG%
1.7 AST/TO (133 AST)
26% AST% / 12% TOV%
62% 2P% on 338 2PA
42% 3P% on 125 3PA
78% FT% on 244 FTA

All-Time NCAA & ACC Ranks

1st in NCAA in BPM, Offensive BPM, Win Shares, Win Shares Per 40, Def Win Shares, Off Win Shares, and PER
1st in ACC in PTS | 2nd in NCAA in PTS
2nd in ACC in PPG | 9th in NCAA in PPG
1st in ACC in REB | 7th in NCAA in REB
1st in ACC in RPG | 13th in NCAA in RPG
2nd in ACC in Offensive RPG | 19th in NCAA in Offensive RPG
1st in ACC in Defensive RPG | 8th in NCAA in Defensive RPG
8th in ACC in AST
11th in ACC in AST
9th in ACC in STL
13th in ACC in STL / GM
4th in ACC in FG%
18th in ACC in FT%
12th in ACC in 2P%
3rd in ACC in eFG%
3rd in ACC in TS%
9th in ACC in AST%

BPM History

2nd-highest BPM ever (+20), up there with fellow Duke Blue Devil Zion Williamson for the most impactful collegiate season by impact rating.

Boozer joins Zach Edey and Steph Curry (2x) as the only members of the 30 USG% / 15+ BPM Club, via Chip Williams.

Cerebro Ratings & NCAA Data Viz

Cerebro Stat Glossary:
C-RAM (Overall Impact) | PSP (Scoring) | 3PE (3PT Shooting) | FGS (Playmaking) | ATR (Rebounding/Blocks) | DSI (Steals/Fouls)

What stands out most about Boozer compared to his peers in the conversation for the #1 pick is that Boozer combines the sum of his parts to project as a reliable half-court hub for an offense to consistently create good looks every night out for the next decade. Boozer’s ball skills, footwork, and mix of efficient scoring versatility, efficient team shot creation, playmaking execution, and team-first decision-making create a walking advantage creator who bends defenses and generates efficient points at will.

Freshman Boozer rated higher that Dybantsa and Peterson overall and in almost every aspect of the game that Cerebro tracks, other than Peterson’s lights-out 3pt shooting metric.

Boozer’s cumulative career ratings this far in all games recorded by Cerebro are elite as a scorer, rebounder, and defender, while ranking highest in every category except for being one point shy of Peterson’s defense and ranking a close 3rd in 3pt shooting. This highlights Cam’s elite traits and scoring efficiency, making winning plays like rebounding and playmaking, the ability to spread the floor from deep, and a special feel for touch passes and turnover-forcing defense, and shows how incredible his now-elite 3pt shooting development has come from his days at the grassroots level.

Individual perimeter defense and lack of quick first step burst could limit Boozer exploding past anyone or shutting down anyone on the perimeter, like most power forwards he’s more of an ultimate connective hub, but his instincts will help him force steals, his versatility will help him switch 3-5 to some degree, and he is effective in one-on-one offense in other ways by using his footwork, awareness, and skill to score and create advantages.

Efficient Shooting Line, High Usage, Low Turnovers

There is only one freshman since 2008 to hit Boozer’s marks in shooting percentages and shooting volume on twos, threes, and free throws at his usage.

According to barttorvik, Boozer is the only NCAA Freshman in their database with over 30% USG% who shot 61-39-78 on 10 2PA — 3 3PA — 7 FTA. For comparison, Dybantsa shot 57-33-77 on 13 2PA –– 4 3PA –– 9 FTA.

The chart below visualizes NCAA freshmen who meet a handful of stats attempting to show scoring efficiency and high-feel decision making, with the x-axis showing volume of shots at the rim horizontally, and turnover percentage vertically on y-axis.

Boozer has the most shots at the rim of all these prospects as a freshmen, and the 2nd-best turnover percentage while doing it, lagging behind one of the draft class’s other best decision-makers, Stanford Ebuka Okorie.

← Rewind to 2023: Scouting The Montverde Sunshine Classic


#12 Cam Boozer, 6’10” Forward, Columbus

A strong-shouldered forward with feathery shooting touch like his NBA All-Star dad, the 6’9″ Cam Boozer quickly become a household name in draft circles as a Top-3 2026 prospect, with this Montverde-Columbus marquee matchup featuring another potential Top-3 prospect (in 2025), Cooper Flagg, just to name two of many exciting prospects in this contest.

Cam Boozer and Donavan Freeman rate strongly here as both scorers and creators, in a similar range of output this weekend as Cooper Flagg and guards Rob Wright and Darius Acuff.

vs. Montverde
20 PTS
8 REB
5 AST / 8 TO
4 STL + 1 BLK
6/13 FG & 7/10 FT
(30 MIN)

A powerful yet graceful dancing bear 6’9″ forward who rocks rims on rolls through the paint, shows soft touch on the jump shot, looks ahead for outlet passes, and glides through defenses on off-ball cuts, Cam sure plays like a Boozer.

In the Montverde matchup, Boozer came out with more intensity in the second half, focusing on powering through people, showing sound handles on the ball, lookahead vision as a playmaker, and leaving huge impact as a rim-finishing play-finisher, even blocking a Flagg driving layup in help defense before finding his brother Cayden on the break off the turnover.

His outlet passes to jumpstart fast breaks were plentiful, even featuring a highlight coast-to-coast live-dribble behind-the-back dribble corner kick 3pt assist!

Boozer flashed all the developable dribble-pass-shoot ball-skills with strong finishing power and good off ball movement timing. This powerful 6’10” hammer who nails deep range jumpers projects to be an offensive force at the highest levels, excelling in similar areas to his NBA All-Star dad, while showing natural scoring creator tendencies for team-first shot creation.

Cam posted the 6th-highest overall impact rating in the event with 8.9 C-RAM, practically tying Cooper’s overall rating. Boozer was more effective as a scorer with a 79/100 PSP rating in the matchup, slightly more impactful defensively with an 87/100 DSI, while mostly matching Flagg in Floor General Skills and At The Rim effectiveness (75 FGS and 70 ATR)

Cam Boozer and Cooper Flagg sit atop future NBA Draft big boards for a reason; big wing/forward plus-defenders who can be relied on as halfcourt offensive creators, connectors, and play-finishers tend to be impactful winning basketball players.

The Good
Scoring at all three levels on and off the ball
Pick-and-pop, catch-and-shoot, relocation threes
Vertical gravity rim-running and well-timed paint-cutting
Drawing fouls with brute strength, sound footwork, solid handle
Clear vision, passing ability, grab-and-go playmaking chops looking ahead on fast breaks
Filling out the box score on both ends like a Shawn Marion or Aaron Gordon multi-faceted turnover-forcing play-finisher

The Bad
Losing control. Whether it be his own strength, the dribble, body and ball control at times – focused effort on spatial awareness, gaining the proprioception feeling of understanding one’s own body movements in space, could work wonders
First half lacked energy and focus compared to second half, but played opponent even from that point in a tough matchup

In football, a dancing bear tends to be a nickname for powerful defensive ends wh are surprisingly agile; large in their frame, yet quick on their feet.

Boozer is the strong, yet graceful dancing bear that any franchise dreams of building around.

A true modern day do-it-all power forward bending the floor on and off the ball, pummeling his way through defenders throwing elbows and shoulder swings, moving skinny through gaps with fundamental footwork fundamentals, finishing below the rim with an endless array of moves, rebounding everything in sight, forcing steals and processing team-first decisions from high to low.

Cameron Boozer remains the clear #1 2026 NBA Draft Pick for me through years of scouting due to him being one of the most impactful, efficient, effective, versatile shot-creating prospects to ever play the sport.

If anyone can be the tentpole that holds up an entire city in the circus that is the NBA, it’s the guy who always plays, always plays hard, always plays smart, always makes team-first decisions, and always generates good shots for his team.

While the basketball world eats up dunks, middy pull-ups, and fadeaways, one lucky team might just wind up landing one of the biggest winners the sport has ever seen, if only they buy low on the Dancing Bear Market.

The post Cameron Boozer, Duke’s Generational Dancing Bear appeared first on Swish Theory.

“Anyone who thinks you can have infinite growth in a finite environment is either a madman or an economist.”

Stubbornly insisting on a single approach can lead to blind alleys. Sometimes, looking at things from a different angle and changing perspectives can reveal unexpected details and help untangle contorted situations.

While I do not have a background in the more technical aspects of basketball, I compensate by putting to good use my expertise in other fields to better understand what I am watching. The pinnacle of interdisciplinary approaches, in my mind, is Evan Zaucha’s article, “The Art and Science of ‘Feel’ in Basketball”. Evan brings his neuroscience background to the forefront of his analysis to describe what the term ‘feel’ actually means in basketball terms.

Similarly, I intend to go beyond the traditional borders of basketball analysis, mapping my knowledge of ecology onto the basketball court.

Introducing the concept of density-dependent factors

A density-dependent factor is defined as “any force that affects the size of a population of living things in response to the density of the population.”

In nature, there are positive density-dependent processes, like diseases that would spread faster among individuals who live in close proximity, and there are negative density-dependent processes. In our case, we’ll take into account mostly the latter processes.

For example, the growth rate of mammal populations is generally influenced (negatively) by the density of the individuals.

Let’s take a look at how a deer population evolves. As population density increases, the amount of available food in the sample area will decline. As food declines, the body condition of individuals worsens. The birth rate is directly proportional to the animals’ body condition: when body condition is poor, the birth rate is low.

Ultimately, high density leads to scarce food supply and poor body condition, which in turn leads to a declining growth rate of the population. You can see already where this is headed.

Another variable that affects the process is the quality of the habitat, which can influence the rate at which growth declines. Habitats rich in resources can sustain higher individual densities for longer and slow the decline in growth rate; poor habitats will have declining growth rates.

(Credits @www.msudeer.msstate.edu)

This kind of process works for plants as well: just think about a very dense group of seedlings competing for the solar light.

NBA Ecosystem

An ecosystem can be broadly defined as a community of living organisms that interact with each other and their non-living environment. While I understand it doesn’t reflect what we commonly consider an ecosystem, the NBA itself can fall within this (broad, as I said) definition.

I’ve been meditating for years on the concept of the “NBA Ecosystem”: an interconnected set of biotic and abiotic components where we can identify rules and processes that we find every day in a coral reef or a boreal forest, for example. A reality that can be studied and analyzed through an ecological lens, alongside the traditional ways we analyze sports.

If we consider the entire National Basketball Association as a complex ecosystem, every team can represent a distinct habitat with its resources, population, and relative interactions. In this context of team-habitats within the NBA ecosystem, we can adopt an ecological approach to roster building, not focusing on the pieces themselves, but analyzing them in their connections with other biotic and abiotic components.

Density-dependent Growth and roster building

NBA teams can be assessed as peculiar habitats, and players as their populations, so we can try to apply the same models we generally use in ecological studies. I often think about similar ecological concepts when looking up this or that NBA roster or reading about a certain signing. And although they were modeled for a completely different field, I do think keeping in mind how these mechanisms work can help us understand certain NBA situations and players’ outcomes.

Density-dependent processes can be a useful tool for seeing rosters from a different angle, while adapting the notions we already have. First of all, rosters can have a max of 15 regular players plus three two-way contracts; the sheer number can’t be higher or lower, besides some rare exceptions. Then, what can be considered the “density”? It depends on the number of players occupying the same niche within the team dynamics. A 10-year vet and a rookie clearly don’t occupy the same niche nor have the same role with the team. In these years of rumination on the topic, I found density-dependent growth particularly fitting for the “population” of rookies and younger players who still need to develop their game.

While in the ecological studies, “growth” represents how the number of individuals in the sample area changes (generally expressed with a rate) in a roster where the number of individuals is pretty much fixed It takes on a more abstract meaning, representing the improvements of a player’s basketball ability.

The richness of resources in the context of a team/habitat is more labile from our point of view. It would take into account the number of minutes available, the quality and quantity of the staff. Three young players competing for minutes in a rebuilding team is a starkly different situation than three players competing for a similar share of minutes on a contending team with a set rotation consistently aiming for the best possible result.

This is an interesting excerpt of an article written by Tom Orsborn for the San Antonio Express-News about Spurs’ increased attention for film studies. The case was unusual, but it gives us a nice hint about something that otherwise would usually be inaccessible: even the potential hours available to study the tape can become resources young players are “competing” for.

In summary, if we consider it a functional parallel, an NBA team represents the habitat of the young players’ population, whose basketball skills’ evolutionary trajectory depends on the number of its individuals and the richness of opportunities, staff, and facilities. A fruitful habitat for maximizing these kinds of developmental resources is not guaranteed.

Brooklyn Nets, a concerning habitat?

The opening quote of this article could also replace “an economist” with “a Brooklyn Nets fan” (except for Lucas Kaplan and other rational Nets fans). The Nets represent a great example of what I’m trying to convey, and their moves during the last offseason were the spark that made me feel the urge to write about this topic.

The Nets’ roster at the beginning of the season (via spotrac.com)

With five rookies and a handful of other players who still need development competing for the same resources, the Brooklyn Nets could soon find themselves with a “declining growth rate” caused by the density within their habitat.

Looking up the Brooklyn Nets’ current per-game assists leaders represents a mystical experience: an apparent balance that hides a reality of shortcomings. All of them occupy a similar niche; all of them compete for playtime and reps; all of them will consume coaching staff resources. Considering also the fact that this season’s rookies are looking like players who need a consistent development path to impact, it is safe to assume not all of them will succeed and probably won’t have an ideal trajectory.

To me, the bigger issue is accumulating five first-round picks in a single draft: it implicitly punts the value of these picks as they are all competing for the same scant playing time/resources. Even more concerning is that all five of the selected players are fairly low-floor. A few of them will likely bust pretty hard. – The Case for Egor Demin by Avinash Chauhan

As Avi demonstrates, the concept of “overpopulation” that can limit the development of young players is something that already stuck in the back of our heads through empirical research and observations. The parallel with the density-dependent factors offers a more standardized explanation of the dynamic.

The byproduct of this messy ecological situation is evident. The team tried to find a balance, assigning players like Ben Saraf and Nolan Traore to the Long Island Nets, where they had to sail the insidious waters of the G League. Meanwhile, Egor Dëmin has his minutes and chances, but his season has been characterized by highs and lows (although it looks like he’s figuring out some things lately).

The release of Cam Thomas at the last trade deadline can be considered a symptom of the process. In a vacuum, it represents a potential waste of assets for the team, but on the other hand, it frees up resources.

Historic examples

The past offers us plenty of examples of the processes we’re examining if we look closely enough. Most rebuilding teams go through phases of overpopulation that are probably a natural consequence of trying to have and take as many draft chances as possible. The San Antonio Spurs during their 2022-2025 rebuild represent a great example I particularly care about.

The 2023-24 Spurs roster

Players like Dominick Barlow, Sidy Cissoko, Sandro Mamukelaishvili and even Blake Wesley or Jamaree Bouyea (who, to be fair, bounced around quite a bit before finally finding his niche this season) didn’t shine or had the chance to shine in this extremely young, extremely dense roster. And all of them are finding more success elsewhere.

Cissoko had some clearly likeable qualities as a prospect, but didn’t improve much from rookie to sophomore season, and the Spurs couldn’t find space in 2024-25 when they were already trying to put together wins. In this particular situation, the process was probably sped up by how quickly the team found their cornerstone (and it likely also applies for the Thunder at the time). When a team just drafted a young phenomenon and owns several future draft picks, the clock starts ticking early for those who are on the margins of the roster.

In a similar quickly developing, hyper-competitive environment, it becomes less likely for two-way players like Barlow and Bouyea to break into the rotation. Although there were probably some signs of Dom Barlow’s trajectory, especially considering how good he was at the G League level at a young age.

In the grand scheme of things, most of this stuff becomes irrelevant when your team gets the 7’4 lottery prize, but winning on the margins gives longer windows of opportunity. Look at it the other way around: how irrelevant was it for the Philadelphia 76ers finding their current starting power forward as a result of this process (Sixers? Process? Unintended pun)?

Acknowledging this process, it becomes easier to recognize buy-low, low-risk/high-reward occasions for teams disposing of plenty of resources. Besides the aforementioned Dom Barlow opportunity, Moussa Diabate going from an end-of-the-bench piece for a competitive team to growing into a high-level rotation piece for the Hornets is a notable example. In these cases, pre-draft evaluations and the G League sample are particularly relevant to identify the ideal candidates.

Another player that could become the most recent, valid argument in favor of this thesis is Ousmane Dieng. Since he left Oklahoma City, the French forward is showing things he didn’t have the chance to display consistently in the depth of the best team in the league.

The Houston Rockets from a few seasons ago are a slightly different but no less interesting case-study: players like Usman Garuba and Josh Christopher got devoured by the rebuild meat-grinder. Cam Whitmore is enduring a similar fate, though there seems to be some more attitudinal stuff going on with him. Could his issues be fixed by devoting more off-the-court attention to these issues in a less developmentally-dense environment?

It is obviously hard for us, as outside observers, to distinguish between those who simply weren’t good enough and who didn’t get enough chances to improve and have a better developmental trajectory in this case. However, those constitute interesting data points anyway.

Natural selection and density dependence

If you endured the reading of this piece to this point and followed NBA basketball in the last few years, you probably realize one of the weaknesses of this theory (or ramblings?).

Recent NBA history shows us that relying on sheer “natural selection” putting prospects in a highly competitive environment represents a functional strategy of long-term team building. Stockpiling as many prospects as possible and just find who is able to figure things out in the league seems to work decently enough.

Just think about the reigning NBA champions, the Oklahoma City Thunder.

Aleksej Pokusevski, Theo Maledon, Darius Bazley, and many others. Many players indeed busted, and many of their assets ended up in the meat grinder, but the selective pressure also allowed them to identify many pieces that are currently part of the clear-cut best team in the league.

However, the density-dependent processes remain important because not every team starts from the same foundations, with the same number of draft opportunities or resources. “Natural selection” operates within the density-dependent processes, and acknowledging them and how they work can help maximize the outcomes.

Wrapping it up

In high school, I studied Latin for 5 years, even though I attended a scientific high school. Many criticize its teaching because it’s a dead language and doesn’t have much value outside the academic world. However, Latin isn’t taught for its utility; it’s taught as a mental exercise to stimulate the identification of connections and instill a certain “forma mentis” in students.

I realized this article represents something similar. It doesn’t presume to solve team-building issues by adopting just a couple of ecological models. But this article humbly wanted to be a useful mental exercise, something that can stimulate the research of patterns and a transverse, interdisciplinary approach in a field that sometimes is a bit too vertical, fossilized in its knowledge.

The post Density-dependent Growth – an interdisciplinary look at roster building appeared first on Swish Theory.