• Freshman for University of Washington (Big Ten)
• Listed at 6’11” and 220 pounds
• 20 years old as of May 1, 2026
• NCAA (2025-26): Averaged 18.5 points, 11.8 rebounds (4.2 offensive), 1.6 assists to 2.0 turnovers, 1.1 steals and 1.2 blocks per game, on 62% shooting from two, 34% from three, and 76% from the line
• FIBA U-19 (2025): Averaged 17.4 points, 13.0 rebounds (4.7 offensive), 1.9 assists to 2.4 turnovers, 0.6 steals and 1.3 blocks per game, on 72% shooting from two, 22% from three, and 78% from the line

The Good:

• His team, the Washington Huskies, has a +19.6 net rating with him on and -0.2 when he’s off. That is as good of a swing as you could hope for from a 19-year-old playing high-major ball. Despite his poor D-BPM, Washington’s defensive efficiency doesn’t drop when he’s on
• Leading the NCAA in rebounding as a freshman, with 14% oreb and 25% dreb rates, shows Steinbach is impossible to keep off the glass — much like he was in FIBA, too. Those figures approximate Joel Embiid’s rebounding figures as a freshman: the rebounding will stick. When Hannes is the lone big, Washington secures 36% of offensive rebounding opportunities, a 4% increase compared to when he’s off, while also boosting their 3pt rate by 12 points. This catches onto the new wave in the NBA

The tape shows Steinbach is great at using his size opportunistically. He is hyper-aware of when he is in an advantageous spot and is relentless fighting over the opponent’s back without fouling. He is also persistent following his own misses. He is far too good of a rebounder to be matched up against a PF.

• For any high-major freshman with these rebounding statistics, only Kevin Love had higher three point volume per possession. The 3.0 threes per 100 possessions rate exceeds that of Caleb Wilson or freshman Julius Randle (who had similar rebounding stats)
• 56 points as a pick-and-popper and 50 points as a roller: not many players can handle his volume for both, even if his roller finishing is still mediocre at 1.16ppp (another undersized big but with better vertical pop and likely a better wingspan, Flory Bidunga, was at 1.37ppp)

The tape shows Steinbach’s scoring versatility after setting a screen. He is coordinated enough to get into his 3pt form smoothly and quickly after a screen, where his man will have to honor his distance shooting. As a roller to the hoop, he is best getting the ball quickly after the screen where his driving can shine. He won’t be a good lob threat with mediocre vertical and wingspan, but will still be a scoring threat inside the arc with his elite midrange touch.

• 33 points in transition as first-middle (first down the court) and 13 as transition ball-handler suggest high motor and some handling skill. He had 2.8 transition ballhandler possessions per game (!) as a transition ballhandler his previous season, playing in German’s B League
• >1 drive possession finished per game, drawing a foul 28% of the time compared to an 18% turnover rate. For a college big, this is amazing to see for potential offensive “wingification”. In fact, I’d say it’s likely he’s an adept outside-in scorer

The tape shows, yet again, an opportunistic player who knows when to take what is given. While the decision-making isn’t perfect, and he often gathers too far from the basket, on average he is making the right play. Given he is too good of a rebounder to be contained by PFs, Hannes should have advantageous ballhandling opportunities against Cs.

• 12 for 30 from three on guarded catch and shoot. Steinbach taking more guarded C&S threes than unguarded is a great sign for trigger-happiness, suggesting he will receive heavy three-point volume for a player of his size
• 43 points off of hooks and runners. Midrange touch experimentation , especially with his great layup (124/191) and dunk (26/27) finishing; Hannes won’t be predictable as a 2pt scorer, even without pull-up jumpers

The tape shows he uses runners and floaters as bail-outs as he struggles to get all the way to the rim. Fortunately, Steinbach is good at slowing down into his release, not rushing, which will ensure decent percentages when combined with his soft touch.

• He had 21 tip-in points, too, ranking 7th in the nation. This shows a proclivity for crashing the glass and the coordination to successfully guide the ball to the hoop with a single touch
• The team assist rate jumps by 4 percentage points when Hannes is on, even as the team turnover rate declines by 2.5 percentage points. Despite not having stellar assist volume, he does seem to grease the wheels in some way (likely at least partially due to his constant screening). Especially impressive is how the percentage of team assists at the rim jumps from 36% to 45%
• Only had three negative BPM games on the season, finishing with 9 straight positive games
• When Hannes is the lone big, his defensive rebounding rate goes up to 28%
• His steal rate of 2% is good for a rebounder of his quality, not totally stilted as a mover, even if unlikely to be a strong perimeter defender

The Bad:

• 5% assist rate against top 50 teams (over a 13-game sample) is putrid for Hannes’ wingification odds, though would be a bigger concern if the team ATO didn’t improve with him on the court
• A 3.9% block rate at 6’11’’ is disappointing, casting doubt on his interior defensive value outside of the rebounding

The tape is a little more encouraging than the raw numbers. Steinbach guarded the perimeter often, a tall task for a player of his height, constantly switching onto quicker ballhandlers. However, his resistance to strength is disappointing, as true bigs can power their way through him to the hoop.

• While opponents take fewer rim attempts when Hannes is on, they shoot a high 63% at the rim when he’s on the court. When Washington’s other big, Kepnang, sits, that number rises to 65%, which would rank 352nd worst rim% allowed in the country
• No pull-up jumpers suggests he might lack the coordination to truly excel as a wing scorer, though the floater volume is an encouraging way to counteract that
• Washington’s free-throw rate when Hannes is the lone big plummets to 24.1, compared to 41% when he’s off the court, again casting some doubt on his interior dominance/strength
• Opponents took 1.2 FGA per game against Steinbach in iso (88th percentile), scoring at a strong 0.96ppp (71st percentile efficiency)

The tape shows wings are able to get favorable angles when driving against Steinbach, and, with his poor vert/WS, Hannes is forced to foul. He might be okay as a switcher against bench units, but this will be an issue as the margins tighten, especially in playoff settings.

Value Proposition:

It’s easy to get stuck trying to figure out what position Steinbach can play in the NBA. On offense, he looks like a reliable spacing PF, especially appealing if you buy his positive passing impact despite the low assist rate. I buy it being acceptable positionally, even if he’s nowhere close to any kind of hub, but the versatile scoring out of pick and roll should give him some favorable situations with the ball where the reads are easier. While he lacks the vertical explosiveness or length to be a true lob threat – his 29 dunks is about half of Asa Newell’s last season, by way of comparison – I think he has the ability to develop a valuable floater with his touch and coordination. The driving tape is great for size, matching the numbers, so Steinbach is far from a static scorer. The shooting confidence at his size, 77% free throw shooting, and 45% finishing in midrange present a compelling spacing profile. If he’s not spacing, he is crashing the glass, with his 14% offensive rebound rate first in the country among starting high major freshmen (Hines and Gurdak had higher rates but <50% minute share). Since 2008, his 14% oreb rate only trails Kevin Love and Jahlil Okafor among high major freshmen to play 70%+ of their team’s minutes. Steinbach is a special rebounder who can also space, with some intriguing passing and ballhandling potential for a near 7-footer.

On the defensive end, it is tougher to find an obvious source of value outside of the rebounding. His 25% dreb rate ranks 6th among high major freshmen to play 70%+ of their team’s minutes since 2008. The impact of that shouldn’t be ignored, even if he is a clear tweener between a 4 and a 5. In that case, I find it easier to imagine Steinbach as a “super sub” who can take easier bench assignments, where his offensive firepower will stand out even more. I think Steinbach could be a great early bench player who will find himself closing games increasingly over his first few seasons, tweener-ism be damned. Ultimately, Steinbach will probably be picked on against NBA starters, unlikely to be a positive switcher or shotblocker. Steinbach had nearly identical drebs/blocks/steals/fouls to Derik Queen last season at Maryland, and Queen just turned in an 8th percentile performance on defense as a rookie at -1.4 D-EPM. He won’t test as poorly as Queen, but may not have Derik’s great sense of angles in getting from point A to B.

Given these defensive limitations, I find it difficult to picture Steinbach as an ironclad future playoff starter, but he has a good chance of offensing his way to starter value, regardless. The swing skills are driving, passing, and floater development, and I lean on the optimistic side for all three. If he can add good strength, the center odds get a heavy increase, too, which would make him a convincing starter.

Steinbach could very well hit important shots as a tall offensive release valve. It is underrated how valuable a tall play-finisher is as far as bailing out an unsuccessful offensive set. In the extreme, we see how Wemby’s stature as tallest great play finisher ever suppresses turnover rates for San Antonio guards who have to take way fewer risks when playing next to him. Steinbach has about a foot less wingspan, but his ability to get off contested threes (12-30 on the season) at his height as a good distance shooter means that late-clock looks are less damaging for his offense. Steinbach doesn’t have offensive engine potential like Derik Queen, who was constantly showing off his passing creativity, but I can’t rule out similar offensive impact given Hannes is ahead as a three-point shooter.

I had skepticism around Hannes earlier in the season, wary of a player whose ceiling seems capped by defensive tweener-ism and a <10% assist rate, but the calculus isn’t so simple. It’s easier to imagine him coming off the bench, but the offensive firepower, combining spacing, driving, and glass-crashing, gives him starter-value potential even still. For this reason, Hannes is in my 5-12 high-confidence range, and currently my #7 prospect in the 2026 NBA draft.

The post Scouting Report: Hannes Steinbach appeared first on Swish Theory.

For this piece, I’m talking to Swish Theory’s Avinash Chauhan, who makes an optimistic claim about Texas wing Dailyn Swain. You can find Avinash’s Swish Theory work here, additional basketball musings at his Substack here, and follow him on Twitter here.

Avinash’s claim: Dailyn Swain is a top-20 level talent in the 2026 NBA draft.

Question #1:

The list of drafted players Swain’s height with a <15 three-point attempt rate (3PA/FGA) is littered with misses. Opponents leave him wide open. Do you think his outside shot is absolutely cooked (career 11-54 from three, 27-74 from midrange) or is there some hope?

Avinash:

How could it not be cooked? Swain is an astonishing 3 for 23 on open catch-and-shoot 3s. I would advise against expecting strong 3P development across his career, and I remain quite high on Swain despite this cognizance. He does not need to shoot to be a productive NBA player.

But is there hope? There will always be hope with a profile as contradictory as Swain’s.

Swain shoots extremely well from the FT line (career 81.6% FT across 152 attempts). While FT proficiency is usually a sign of future shooting goodness, it can’t be that easy.

See, Swain is in this weird zone, shooting enough threes to not be a complete non-shooter, but shooting a relatively low number of threes overall and bricking them.

To showcase this, let’s focus on the three main indicators of shooting upside: FT%, 3P%, and 3Pr.

High FT% + High 3PR + High 3P%: elite elite shooter

• Ex. Steph Curry, Sam Hauser

High FT% + High 3PR + Low 3P%: still an elite shooter, likely lots of OTD 3s

• Ex. Austin Reaves, Franz Wagner

High FT% + Low 3PR + High 3P%: usually a rim-heavy guard that can still end up shooting

• Ex. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Jalen Williams

High FT% + Low 3PR + Low 3P%: ???

This is an extraordinarily rare intersection: just 7 NBA-appearing college players since 2008 have shot worse than 40% 3P with less than 4 3PA/100 while still shooting 80% from the line. What’s even more interesting is that just 3 of these players had a true career sample: it’s really just Delon Wright, Hansbrough, and Mike Muscala that met this intersection over multiple seasons, and only Mike Muscala did it over more than 2 seasons. Swain appears poised to join him.

What makes this even more baffling is that Swain has been shooting 80% from the line all the way back to his AAU days. In 37 AAU games over 16U and 17U Nike EYCL seasons, Swain shot 83/107 (77%) from the line. That means Swain has been shooting ~80% FT since 2021.

75% FT, < 30% 3P, < 2 3PA/game. From my AAU database with ~2000 player-seasons, just 5 players met these criteria. Despite every one of the NCAA players here having lower career FT% in NCAA compared Swain, they at least doubled his 3Pr.

Some other notes:
Swain has shot 13/33 (39%) on dribble jumper 2s across 2 NCAA seasons. He shot 7/25 (28%) on dribble jumpers in AAU. At least there’s touch improvement somewhere, and there’s a bit of asymmetric reward to risk. It’s the type of shot someone with a 14% PnR BH scoring frequency could really use (this is a superb rate for a wing-sized player).

And Swain narrowly missed this query with a number of impressive developmental stories, sporting an assist percentage just 1% off the 12% threshold.

So we have 100 games of Swain’s low 3P make + high FT% tomfoolery across AAU+NCAA, and he has at least 30+ games left in his college career. This is uncharted territory, and your guess is just as good as mine for whether he ever meaningfully shoots. For what it’s worth, the only person close to this sort of volume (Muscala) shot 37% 3P on 8.2 3PA/100 for his NBA career, but it took him 6 NBA seasons to actually hit that rate across a season.

And, Swain kinda ended the season with some momentum. He went 3/5 from 3P in his final game vs Illinois in the first round of March Madness. It was actually his best college game ever (27 points, 27 BPM, 33% USG, 6 assists+steals : 0 TOs). Positive momentum for the win?

Maybe. For those keeping track, that also means he was 1/9 from 3 during that month, excluding the Illinois game. Still, his 3PA/100 was doubled relative to his career average across that final month.

To summarize: Swain’s profile holds an unparalleled long-term integration of FT% goodness x 3P badness, nice dribble jumper proficiency, high levels of cognition typically associated with strong development, and positive momentum. And he’s super young for class. This year, I expect some 3P shooting improvement for the first time in years.

But he’s missed so many 3s for so long that it’s still more likely than not that he does not end up shooting well. There’s hope, but he doesn’t really need it. He should be a solid NBA contributor regardless.

Question #2:

A big part of the appeal for Swain is his being a wing ballhandler. This premise makes his fans excited about his transition game and utility as a pick-and-roll operator. However, his turnover rates for both pick and roll when pressured and when used as a transition ballhandler are a very high 30% for each.

Avinash:

A big part of Swain’s appeal is indeed his wing ball-handling upside. He clocks in at an impressive career 15% assist rate on just 17% usage. However, his career 16% TO rate is unimpressive relative to this lower usage. What gives?

The unifying theme of Swain’s turnovers is errant passes. This is important to me, as most other wings that I’ve watched have turnover issues more concerned with scoring process or poor dribbling technique.

More specifically, Swain is trying to get rim assists at a pretty high clip, which is actually a feature of the Xavier offense: they ranked in the 4th and 1st percentiles in spot-up frequency in 2025 and 2024, respectively. There are some gimme assists that he fails, like bouncing off his foot, but his biggest issue is just forcing passes into very tight windows, as well as poor pass accuracy on the move.

In defense of Swain, he didn’t quite have the safety valves that others may have. First, Xavier probably had the worst “center” rotation out of any reasonably good high major team. Their center was Zach Freemantle, a 6’9 225 lb power forward with a mediocre wingspan. Forcing the ball to a guy with such a limited catch radius is just not ideal, but he just didn’t have those other safety valves. Beyond their uber-low spotup frequency, Xavier didn’t run many cuts either (13th percentile in 2025, 7th percentile in 2024), meaning that many of Swain’s passes out of PnR had to be post entries.

As a side note, Swain probably should be used more on cuts. He has the body and intuition for it, along with 1.3 PPP last year. Unfortunately, Xavier’s primary perimeter PnR was 6’2 Dayvion McKnight, who shot 49% at the rim and less than 3 3PA/100. His abhorrent 0.702 PPP on PnR BH, and the departure of the four Xavier players with higher assist rates than Swain in 2024, were major reasons why Swain’s PnR BH frequency doubled from 2024 to 2025.

So, Swain’s TO rate when defense commits is concerning, but it was a bad enough context that we can hopefully expect strong improvements with his feel and another year under his belt. It is something to monitor.

Swain’s turnover rate in transition is less defensible. The most obvious culprit again seems to be errant passing. He’s more pass-heavy in transition than I expected, considering a massive 30% of his scores came in transition. He’s just moving too quickly and isn’t able to make dynamic, accurate kick-ahead reads.

Ultimately, Swain has clear turnover issues, but not something I would consider truly pivotal: I’d be more concerned if more of these were bad scoring TOs rather than bad pass TOs (see below: his drive TO rate). His career 1.7 A:TO and 3% steal rate indicate strong enough cognition that we can partially cope that this is an issue of poor technique rather than processing. I expect more turnovers with increased usage, but hopefully he trims the rate somewhat.

Question #3:

Additionally, his 1.4 drives per game lags the second-year drive rate of Herb Jones (1.8 per game), Kyle Filipowski (2.9), or Mikal Bridges (1.7), among prospects with relatively similar production profiles. What kind of ball-handling burden/complexity is Swain really capable of when faced with tougher comp?

Avinash:

Yes, to activate higher-end outcomes worthy of meaningful draft capital, Swain needs to demonstrate creation capacity. His career 17% usage + 55% minutes share after two seasons lags a bit behind these names mentioned. While it remains to be seen how well he scales up, his playtype rates, rather than per-game numbers, is probably more instructive.

Let’s compare his playtype numbers to the names mentioned, plus three more I added. I used Bart’s Career Player Comp feature to generate this query that ranked the most similar careers to Swain, and added an NBA filter and height filter. I chose the top 3: OPJ, Cody Martin, and Dalen Terry.

Swain’s 13.4% drive frequency isn’t as pressing in this paradigm, but it still notably lags behind Filipowski and Herb.

However, Swain crushes the field in drive efficiency, with over 0.9 points per drive possession. He does this with the lowest drive turnover rate, while still drawing a healthy number of fouls per drive. This micro turnover rate is an interesting antidote to his turnover concerns.

However, since there is typically no double-counting between drive possessions and PnR BH possessions (a drive does not involve a screen), I like to account for these PnR BH “quasi-drives”.

Immediately, Swain’s massive PnR BH frequency stands out. Part of why Swain’s drive frequency was so low is that he scored on PnR BH possessions at a high rate.

It’s not just higher PnR BH frequency relative to the field. Swain’s scoring approach out of PnR BH playtypes was far better than any other player here. If we ignore Filipowski’s inflated stats out of a 1.3% PnR BH frequency, Swain paces the group in PnR BH frequency, PPP, AND free throw rate. His TO rate ranks 3rd out of 6.

To recap, Swain is the most efficient on drives and PnR BH reps among these players…while ranking close to the top in TO rate and FT rate. His drive+PnR BH aggregate frequency trails just Herbert Jones and his query-worst aggregate PPP.

To be fair, none of these guys were really creating like that in the NBA. But Swain’s production transcends this comparison. And he’s the youngest here, while weighing at least 10 more pounds than anyone besides Filipowski. With potentially the best wingspan. There’s just no argument to me: Swain has by far the best creation upside of the group.

Increased ball handling burden is inevitable, and while improving handling control and complexity are not something I can easily project, there’s just too much here for me not to expect continued improvement.

You can’t get better datapoints than size/age-adjusted creation efficiency (not that it needs to be adjusted) and strong cognition. While you raised exceptional points that cannot meaningfully be refuted until we see it manifested, this is my best cope.

Question #4:

That all sounds great, and I am struggling to poke holes in Swain’s fairly complete game otherwise. But I do struggle to see what kind of role Swain would fit into immediately that both keeps his development curve sharply sloped and the friction with NBA lineups low (absent a major shooting leap). How does he fit in right away?

Avinash:

Swain is largely theoretical in impact right now. He possesses a slew of important traits, from his FT touch to his cognition to his impressive ballhandling at size…but he hasn’t been particularly impactful.

A net offensive rating impact of -0.8 when Swain is on compared to Xavier’s baseline is very underwhelming for a decent offense. Swain has a positive FTR influence, and his positive TO influence is an improvement from last year. We can attribute this to his scaling up (higher PnR and driving responsibility) while maintaining A:TO.

The lack of on/off impact is emblematic of a more pressing issue with Swain: there just isn’t a whole lot of “guarantees.”

He’s promising in a lot of areas, but not truly adept at anything in relation to halfcourt offense. You’d think a player with his athleticism and transition prowess would be able to be more effective at the rim, but Swain shot a pedestrian 64% at the rim on a majority-assisted rim diet. While there’s some sliver of ball handling upside, there’s also a chance Swain isn’t able to convert self-created rim attempts at a respectable rate.

Swain is what I’d call a “trait-maxxed” player: he checks lots of boxes that indicate high upside. He’s super young, he will measure and test exceptionally well, and he blends cognition, physicality, and touch in a way that typically translate to NBA goodness. But he simply hasn’t quite done anything worthy of NBA status … yet.

Without improved shooting volume, the projection is somewhat difficult but not impossible. Something like an athletic finisher with defensive impact, something in the realm of Ausar or Josh Minott. He could carry over his 98th percentile transition frequency to the league and do his best Christian Braun impression, though that is somewhat dependent on the context. This may not sound too compelling, but my thesis is that Swain’s ancillary production is too good to fail. It’s quite similar to my case for the aforementioned Josh Minott, who also faced questions about his NBA role, but is making it work given his cognitive and physical strengths.

To answer the other half of your question: based on historical trends, I believe that trait-maxxing is the most important predictor of development over expectation. Massive arms and feel, for instance, has been Sam Presti’s method to draft success. This is why I believe his development curve will be sloped upwards regardless of role, for the time being: he’s entering the critical period of development (age 20/junior year) where the big-time leaps occur.

Can he access super high-end outcomes without being able to shoot at reasonable volume? Probably not. But the guy is an S-tier athlete with huge dimensions, can run creation playtypes at efficiency, and he’s an elite stocker with strong passing and rebounding. There is a small (and improbable) chance that Swain could check every single meaningful “trait” box and parlay that into stardom, particularly if he shoots (and as I outlined before, higher volume shooting isn’t as unlikely as you may think).

In an expected value paradigm (probability x value), a miscellany of small probability x high upside avenues can aggregate towards a sneaky-high expected value. It is difficult for me to project the specifics of Swain’s development curve, but I feel that his expected value is somewhere in the tier of a real deal NBA player. Let’s see if ancillary production and trait-maxxing can manifest in legitimate impact.

The post Show Me a Prospect: Dailyn Swain appeared first on Swish Theory.

First, I’m talking to Logan Adams who makes an optimistic claim for Vanderbilt’s Devin McGlockton. You can find Logan’s work here and follow him on Twitter here.

Logan’s claim: Devin McGlockton is a draftable talent, and should be on draft boards. His ability to win possessions with stocks and rebounds and encourage advantages on offense through passing, play finishing and screening makes him impactful beyond production.

Question #1:

Just right away, a few things point to a limit in McGlockton’s upside, but I’m curious if you agree/disagree. First, his combined lack of post up (3 for 12 all season) or drive threat (6 of 14 all season) make him confined to assisted possessions — he had the second highest assisted rate on Vanderbilt at 72% of makes. Do you disagree with this assessment as a ceiling-limiter, or is your idea around his value more tied to his likelihood of being a consistent role player?

Logan:

Self-creation is the clear critique of McGlockton, and one I totally get. He’s not big-sized, so a high assisted percentage is daunting at the next level, but what he lacks in size, he fully makes up for in wiring and athleticism. He’s long and quick, with range and motor that made him one of the SEC’s best offensive rebounders, and as a byproduct, an incredible possession extender and play finisher. To directly address on-ball concerns, I’ll deflect to what he provides as an off-ball scoring and playmaking addition to any lineup. Last season, he was statistically one of the best roll men in the country, with a 95th percentile volume. Soft hands, quick thinking, close-space athletic traits, and plus-plus touch are the ingredients that make this unorthodox yet effective offensive cocktail. With McGlockton on the floor, Vanderbilt produced a 122.4 ORTG, which would have been good for 15th in the country last season, and 19.0 points better than what Vanderbilt was capable of without him. 

Question #2:

His on/offs are indeed elite, on both sides of the ball, which makes me think there is more going on than meets the eye or shows in counting stats. But I worry about the margins. He is a good athlete, but I don’t think a great one. He is an amazing offensive rebounder and a fantastic shotblocker for position, but his 16 dunks are much more pedestrian for a 6’7” player. If he’s not dunking, will he be able to keep the margins wide enough to get good finishing angles, or will NBA shot blockers overwhelm him? Additionally, on the defense end, his foul rate goes up to 5.3 per 40 minutes in his 17 games against top 50 competition. Is this another sign of athletic limitations?

Logan:

I think when discussing margins, especially as a scorer at the next level, it’s important to understand McGlockton’s touch indicators. He was incredibly efficient on his halfcourt rim attempts, going 11-of-11 on dunks and 68.8% on 80 layup attempts. He was almost at 40% on unguarded catch-and-shoot threes, and although shooting 66.7% from the free-throw line this past season, he’s consistently been in the mid-to-high 70s since high school. I’ve only really harped on why I think his scoring will translate to this point, though, and the foul increase is a valid concern. Part of it certainly has to do with margins, another that he’s making up for outlier-bad rotational defenders that make McGlockton easier to attack as a byproduct. The limitations are there, though, but it’s not enough to completely diminish his strengths.

Question #3:

There’s an unusual discrepancy between how McGlockton’s assist rate is low, below 10%, and how much the team passing improves when he’s on, going from a team assist rate of 46% to 52% with a decline in turnovers. Which do you think is more reflective of his impact on team passing and overall feel?

Logan:

To me, for as good as McGlockton is on defense, his superpower is his ability to create and extend advantages in ways that don’t show up on the stat sheet, which is cliche but applicable. He’s maybe one of the hardest screeners I’ve seen on film, which both creates mismatches and 5-on-4 or 4-on-3 situations for his team. That extends to his ability as a handoff hub, setting the table for his teammate to create with an advantage. Then, you have what he’s capable of as a delay action orchestrator, finding cutters in ways that enhances ball and body movement. I think his assists will go up this season with the departures of guys like Jason Edwards and AJ Hoggard, slotting McGlockton into more of a traditional hub role, but the passing and advantage creation has always been there.

Question #4:

Ok, considering all of that — where do you see McGlockton fitting in best in the NBA, and what kind of role would you expect him to play early in his career?

Logan:

The initial assignment will be as a small ball big. It’s what he’s been all three, going on four, years of college at this point, and I expect it to continue this way. In a pick-and-roll heavy system, he’ll fill in nicely as a screener and advantage/possession extender with his strength, passing, and play-finishing. Defensively, I have lingering doubts stemming from the question you asked regarding margins, but ultimately think he has the mind and tools to be impactful despite that. I think when discussing whether a player is draftable, it can often be misinterpreted as, “Is this player going to have a 10-to-15-year career?” or “Is this player going to have a starting-caliber impact?” I think there are pathways to that for McGlockton, who has been impactful at every stop, and has circumvented what appear to be clear weaknesses, all while having yet to unlock clear potential in areas like shooting and passing. However, in reality, we get very few second-round picks who receive fully guaranteed contracts historically, and even less now, with the third two-way slot allowing teams more hesitation to sign their late picks to full-scale, guaranteed deals. Even if McGlockton’s future is bouncing from team to team on two-ways, that is a high-percentile outcome for someone being argued on the basis of draftability.

The post Show Me a Prospect: Devin McGlockton appeared first on Swish Theory.

Before watching any tape, I like to get a good grasp of where a player’s strengths and weaknesses are statistically. This helps me ground their performance, where anything unexpected compared to their stats then jumps off the screen.

First off, I love to see Koa’s playmaking burden. In AAU, he finished:

• 4.9 pick and roll possessions per game (including passes)
• 4.5 driving plays per game
• 2.8 plays as transition ballhandler and
• 2.7 post up possessions per game (including passes).

He pushes himself beyond simple plays, too, with 3.9 iso plays per game and 6.1 pull-up jumpers. These are signs of a player with on-ball upside.

And the athleticism looks very good, to provide that capacity for growth. He dunks a good amount (1.4 times per game) and picks up 1.5 steals and 1.4 blocks per game. Not a nuclear athlete, but clearly with some signals of NBA quality. So now we have a player who has taken on a substantial on-ball burden while also showing dynamic, functional athleticism.

The concern is obvious: he is not a three-point shooter, taking only 1 catch-and-shoot three his entire AAU season (15 games). On the positive side, he has very good touch on layups overall, in the 84th percentile on a high volume 4.6 attempts per game. While his 0.78 points per pull-up attempt looks dire, that is still above average for the AAU tournament’s pull-up shooters. 71% from the line gives us some semblance of touch to work with, too. Especially for a guy able to get to the rim on his own, and has his level of athleticism.

My question from the profile is around his level of off ball feel, as he had very few points off of cuts. Is this a function of role or capability? Additionally, his 2.3 assists per game is solid for someone who can dunk and block shots, but pedestrian for all the time he spends on-ball. Again, does this point to a lack of overall feel? The same thing could be asked about his elevated foul rate, too.

Star Signs

Now, let’s dig into the tape.

The strongest indication of Koa being an eventual star is not just how he has the ball in his hands constantly, but how he can often be found driving with force. Now, his 0.45 free throw rate on drives in AAU (0.49 in FIBA U19 play) is far from dominant, but impressive considering how often he settles for pull-ups — when he goes to the basket, he goes to the basket. Koa’s nimbleness with his handle leads him to get good angles to then lower his shoulder without fouling. This is a star sign as it shows Koa has the capability of creating standstill looks from the perimeter. Perhaps a lighter creation burden, receiving the ball in more advantageous positions, and some coaching encouragement will lead him to choose the power option more often, rather than settling.

One major issue I have with Peat is that he can be a beat late to react to the ball flashing past or in front of him. His poor reaction speed may be a major ceiling limiter, as the NBA plays at breakneck speed with the ball whipping around in every which direction. However, Koa still has good hands. Despite his mediocre +3 wingspan, he can acquire stocks by swiping at the right place or using his change of pace to snag the ball before his opponent. That mobility and finding of optimal swipe angle are things that should stick regardless of the level of play, and seriously compensate for his processing slowness. (It should also be mentioned that this processing issue has only rarely, at least, led to high turnovers, often playing it safe.)

The rest of the star signs shine dimly, only on display on occasion in comparison to the NBA’s best of the best. Sometimes he goes up to get the ball at its apex, sometimes not; sometimes he scores on quick go-to moves, but also often settles or fades; occasionally he pulls out a creative kick out, but prefers to hunt for his own shot; his touch appears very good on layups, but he lacks the improvisational midrange touch the NBA’s great scorers display from difficult angles. It all reads like a player capable of fringe stardom, with clear ceiling-limiters without unexpected developmental leaps.

Improver Signs

The good thing is, Koa has many possible avenues to improvement. His most important quality in that regard is that he loves experimenting. More on-ball possessions than even AJ Dybantsa in AAU gave him the context to just-try-things, and he did. Peat took many midrange pull-ups from many angles, but alternated that with more forceful drives to the basket. While I would bet against him becoming a deadly off-the-dribble shooting threat, Peat has opportunities to become that which most players do not. His adeptness as a ballhandler as a big wing locks in some on-ball reps which are likely to continue in some capacity at any level. Few players can say that.

Peat also exhibits stellar technique all over the court. This enhances his on-ball creativity, trying out stutter rips, spins, euros, decels. All good stuff for a ballhandler, which means a rare repertoire for a player of his 6’8” stature. He displays nearly ideal technique on closeouts, chopping his feet with one hand raised and the other extended into passing lanes. He contests with his off-hand if the situation calls for it, a rare quality for young players contesting at the rim often.

He scores well for other improver traits, too. One clear takeaway from my greatest-improver research is that having an elite motor is always present for the league’s greatest developmental stories. Even the great improver Devin Booker was a dogged defender at Kentucky. Peat is an active player, commanding the ball on offense and often taking on difficult defensive assignments, including frequently functioning as his team’s center. He might not be in the top 10 percent for most intense motors in the league, but it is another area where he is clearly above average.

That goes for his small space coordination, too: clearly above average, dancing with the ball here and there with impressive nimbleness for size at 6’8” and strong. I love small space coordination as an improver trait, not just for its aesthetic value, but because it can unlock rare combinations with the ball. Koa can stay light on his feet into his opponent’s body, initiating physicality, while being ready to spin past his man and the help. This is a fun combination with on-ball experimentation, giving Koa real driving upside.

Archetype

Wing Initiator B+ / Play Finisher B- / Connector: Body Bagger B / Help Rim Protector B

So, what would Koa Peat’s on-court contributions look like, projecting forward to his NBA career?

Peat’s plethora of improver traits make the shape of that fairly amorphous. We know Peat has some capability as a ballhandler, even if the shooting efficient and distribution to his teammates isn’t high caliber. We know Peat has some appeal as an athlete, a very fluid 6’8” while maintaining a strength advantage. His change of direction bodes well for moving more off-ball, as he was initiating a heavy majority of the time in AAU.

Simply, we do not know what the final form of Peat looks like, though we do see some ceiling-limiters. His average (+3) wingspan, most of all, limits his flexibility to play as a true smallball big, though his rapid leaping speed does compensate. His good hands on defense and open-court speed should keep him as a strong transition threat at all levels.

The odds are against Peat being an above-average initiator for a good team, but mostly because that is the rarest archetype with a thin tail. We see frequent debates around Paolo Banchero’s ability to lead efficient offense, and Peat falls short of Paolo in some areas (Banchero’s passing and height being the biggest standouts). But it is impossible for me to rule it out, particularly given how many boxes Koa checks as an improver. The opportunity will be there.

My second archetype for Koa Peat is what I call the Body Bagger. These include Warrior big types like Kevon Looney, Draymond Green and Al Horford. More recently, Jaylin Williams on OKC embodies this. The key traits for this type are strength, rebounding, screening, passing and switchability. If Koa, already physical for his age, is able to continue to add strength, he could find utility as a screen and roller and short roll playmaker. But his processing weakness might lack in comparison to this particularly brainy archetype – can he make difficult outside-in reads, or flow perfectly into dribble hand-offs?

Peat will not be a primary rim protector, but with his mobility, motor and quick leaping, is still likely to have a positive impact. +3 wingspan and mediocre max vertical are ceiling limiters here, related as well to his mediocre rebounding projection.

Finally, Peat has some chance to make it as a shotmaker. His shooting form is not very fluid, bringing both hands together in the middle, but he has a decent follow-through and is organized pulling up. The most important thing here is that he continues to try, and why I cannot rule this outcome out entirely, either.

Putting It Together

In an upside scenario, Peat becomes an initiator as a 6’8” strength creator with some level of shotmaking and passing. There is some chance, with his ballhandling, experimentation, athleticism and technique, that he leads an above average offense. It is not a large chance, but it is significant enough that Peat seems like a worthy lottery pick to me. The fact that he has potential to develop in other areas – as a connecting screen-setter and short roll play maker, or cutter/transition finisher, or even to become more consistent as a midrange shotmaker – in addition to his existing defensive goodness brings him to clear lotto territory. It is extremely early, and I am still in the process of watching potential one-and-dones, but he currently sits at #10 on my board for the 2026 NBA draft.

The post Pow Report: Koa Peat appeared first on Swish Theory.

The post Summer Sleepers: Adrian Wooley appeared first on Swish Theory.

We can start with Dak’s passing. For his size, Dak is exceptionally creative, able to make bi-directional reads (passing against his body or no-looking) off of simple dribbles. To once again call back to my star qualities pieces, being able to jump pass and just generally “pass through” your defender is a universal characteristic of the greats. You have to be able to problem-solve instantaneously, and Dak flashes plenty of that at a young age. To even get these passes off requires a high level of coordination, too.

Next, Dak is one of the most experimental bigs on the ball in the NCAA, especially for an underclassman. Dak often flashed to the high post or elbow where he then faced up. In these instances, he frequently went to his standard: the stutter rip. Dak grips the ball and rips it left to right, left to right, stuttering lead foot with each swing, unpredictable in whether he will lunge to his right, left, or simply shoot it. His driving stats show about a 50/50 split between left and right, with higher efficiency when going left (Synergy). His comfort here shows technical prowess, requiring synchronicity between the stutter foot and the rip through, and quick decision-making to choose which route to take. Coordination, experimentation, reactive decision-making, all of this is on display when Dak gets to work in the midrange. His high level of experimentation, often while covered tightly from deep midrange, led to <40% midrange shooting. But Dak was 7 for 15 on pull-up twos and 8 for 17 on runners, showcasing touch on difficult attempts.

With added strength, these attempts will get closer to the basket, making everything easier while Dak also continues to refine his technique. He could become a very strong two-point scorer. But more importantly, Dak maintains exceptional traits that relate to overall star equity. If he can do these things well, he will likely be able to figure out other basketball problems, too. His biomechanics allow him to get low into a crossover, or change pace with differing stride lengths.

Finally, this would all be for naught if Dak did not try on the court. Fortunately, Dak has what I would grade as a top 10th percentile motor, constantly fighting for best positioning on the court. While his defensive technique and hands aren’t perfect, he compensates by trying to be everywhere. His issues were worsened by playing out of position – Dak is a four, not a five, and especially not in his age-19 season. His 7.6% block rate ranked sixth in the Big 12, but rebounding was outright poor for position. Dak only weighed in at 185 pounds despite being nearly seven feet tall. Boxing out starting Big 12 centers was an impossible task, one that led Colorado’s defense to be better with him off the court. With some more weight (Dak clocked in at 203 pounds this training camp), Dak is unlikely to be targeted by bigs as often, and that is because of his exceptional motor. The center issue will likely persist some this season, but mitigated by the addition of 7’0”, 245-pound freshman Tacko Fawaz.

Bangot Dak has traits rare in their combination, which is likely to produce a rare kind of player. One who plays hard, experiments, is able to make quick, creative decisions and is highly coordinated is one who has a high ceiling. Even with some limitations, like a weak frame and only okay hands, Dak has been able to contribute and try things all over the court. The three and free-throw percentages remain poor, if improving, but the foundation is there to continue on the upswing. Coordinated, technical players who play hard have a major leg up on those who do not, and not many Dak’s height are able to check all of those boxes. With another offseason in the weight room and another year to try things on the court against very good competition, Dak kicks off and could easily finish the season as a first-rounder on my board.

The post Summer Sleepers: Bangot Dak appeared first on Swish Theory.

This summer, I want to apply those lessons to up-and-coming players, first in the NCAA. This will serve both as a useful evaluatory framework for each player; it will also be fertile testing ground to see what eye test cues work and what does not.

Below, I will provide a brief introduction to the NBA draft prospect before diving into the elements of their game. This piece will then look at which Star Traits and Improver Traits this player displays in his tape. By going through these categories with sleeper prospects, I hope to disentangle what translates to higher levels of play, and how.

Malique Ewin, Arkansas

Ewin had the unconventional path of playing for Ole Miss as a freshman before transferring down the ladder to South Plains Community College in Texas. The #1 ranked junior college player after one season there, Ewin then accepted an offer to transfer back up to Florida State. After a season putting up some of the best stats in the woeful ACC, Ewin faces a challenge in stepping up in competition by transferring to John Calipari’s Arkansas in the ultra-competitive SEC.

Ewin’s Star Traits

Perfect: Go Up and Get It

Any analysis of Ewin has to start with his most standout ability: his rebounding.

I have rarely seen a player use his body as well as Ewin, combined with stellar sense of timing, to make himself a consistently useful rebounder. Ewin is elite at finding the ball at its apex, and not just when rebounding – he times lob finishes and blocks well, too.

We will talk later about how consistently Ewin applies physicality to gain advantageous position, but it’s really his ability to grab the ball at its apex that makes him unique. Despite roaming from the basket here and there and some athletic limitations, Ewin put up a top 20 offensive rebound rate among high-major players. As you can see in the tape above, Ewin’s timing makes him a menace in traffic, able to play the five for FSU where he boosted his team’s offensive and defensive rebounding rates. He reminds me of Justin Champagnie or Johni Broome as rebounders above their height in college.

Ewin’s physical tools, including poor foot speed, limit his upside as a shotblocker, but his timing and spatial reasoning to optimize his positioning make him a help-side threat nonetheless. On the offensive end, Ewin is a fantastic lob finisher with 48 dunks on the season, good for fourth in the ACC. Ewin is able to position his body perfectly to catch alley oops even from a full sprint, finishing 77% of his transition attempts.

Go Up and Get It is a star trait due to how stable it is in holding value, and the importance of controlling the possession battle generally. Ewin can overcome some athletic limitations with this ability, sticky in its contribution due to him being able to beat players taller than himself for boards. In the right setting, his lob finishing and secondary shot-blocking could help, too.

Very Good: Pass Through Your Defender

Ewin’s second standout trait is a step below his ‘go up and get it’ ability: his ability to ‘pass through’ his opponent. This often means jump passes, a great way to get an angle on an opponent and showcase instantaneous decision-making. But more generally, the star trait is simply that: any showcase of unique angles gained on an opponent via quick-decision passing.

The first clip above is Ewin’s best in this article, not only leaping to make the pass but also sideways to do so while passing in between two different defenders, with another at his back. An extremely high difficulty pass such as this can only be completed by an extremely high-feel and coordinated player with passing talent.

Ewin lacks consistently great decision-making, likely worsened by FSU’s poorly structured offense with limited talent. But Ewin’s passing shines regardless, and likely could be ramped up even more in a context with better play finishers around him — FSU ranked 280^th in college basketball for three-point percentage and 310^th in three-point rate…yikes.

Very Good: Unstructured Midrange Touch

Perhaps a surprising trait for his archetype, Malique Ewin displayed high-difficulty touch from unusual positions throughout the season. He is a very good structured finisher, meaning with traditional technique, heavily favoring inside right hand reverses which typically go in. But we care more about his unstructured finishes, meaning those coming from unusual hand positions relative to the ball from difficult angles and/or distances. Ewin passes the eye test, swimmingly, here.

Despite not having hardly any pull-up jumpers or runners, and shooting poorly on a heavy volume of hook shots, Ewin took very difficult layups often, in traffic, from difficult angles and pushing the distance on what is considered a layup, and made an 85th percentile 64% of those. Despite not having access to Synergy data for his community college season, Ewin shot an elite 62% from the field that year.

It is not uncommon for players to have poor free-throw percentages, like Ewin in the low 60s, while hitting a good percentage of midrange attempts. On Bart Torvik, which calculates midrange attempts that may include Synergy’s lengthier layups, Ewin shot 32-83 (a decent 39%) in the midrange with only 12.5% assisted. I’m relying on the eye test here, given the high degree of difficulty of his attempts and frequency of near misses, but an overall two-point percentage of 60% is still good for 12th in the ACC.

Where He Falls Short

There are two other star traits I noted in my study, with Ewin falling short of excellent for both. Perhaps the most important star trait of all – the one that stood out the most and immediately when watching Hall of Famers – is having a “one-two punch.” A one-two punch is a quick scoring option where a player is able to create a consistent amount of space to make it highly repeatable. Think Jordan’s crossover, Kareem’s hook, Duncan’s turnaround bank shot or Shaq’s drop step.

Ewin does not have that, at least not consistently, yet. More success with his hook shot could allow him to settle into using that as a weapon, but that development is far from guaranteed. Diminishing those odds is how not only did Ewin have few post-up possessions this past season, but how Calipari has rarely used them the past two seasons. A good portion of Ewin’s drives were straight-line, though he did mix in some spin moves, with mixed success.

The other superstar trait where Ewin falls short is his hands. Now, they are not bad by any means, as Ewin has a particularly quick reaction time when people try to pass through him. But are they elite, a standout trait at the NBA level? No, and this is a characteristic that is difficult to improve upon – you either have great hands or not. Among 6’10” high major players, Ewin is in the exact middle for steal rate and slightly below average for block rate. A lot of this is not the fault of his hands but rather his limited mobility in space. His recovery tools stink, and he can get burned fairly easily by guards. But he has the vertical and size to block more shots, especially playing the five for FSU, and he simply does not.

A lack of space creation on offense and space closure on defense, worsened by mediocre hands, all but guarantees Ewin will fall short of sniffing stardom as a basketball player. But there are clear points of high competency that will translate well to any level of ball. In particular, his rebounding is likely sticky, and provides a nice floor to value. This is particularly the case given his demonstrated high feel with passing talent. There are qualities that an NBA team would be attracted to.

Ewin’s Improver Traits

Excellent: Initiates Physicality

This goes hand in hand with Ewin’s high-pointing ability to make him a vicious rebounder, but also makes him a particularly good screen setter. Ewin is strong, and feels comfortable squaring his body to an opponent to hit them full on. Ewin lacks perfection here as often a finesse finisher near the rim, but with good touch that’s okay. His 41.4 free throw rate is just mediocre for a big, but understates his physicality seen more in clearing out his opponent. This mixes well with Ewin’s high feel nature, allowing him to place his body in the most obstructing position possible.

Initiating physicality is an important ingredient to improving, considering you need both the strength and willingness to hold your spot on both ends. If you’re losing the physicality battle, that will hurt you every single possession, especially essential for bigs who will be featured rebounders and screeners. But more broadly, being physical means you have a determination about the game that lends well to getting better, generally.

Very Good: Motor

Now we see the picture forming: Ewin simply plays hard. While still prone to conserve energy – Ewin is not the quickest, and perhaps could have slightly better fitness – when he’s in the action, he commits. We see his relentless pursuit on the glass, where he snags 13.7% of offensive rebound opportunities. Ewin is still two notches below perfect in this category, but it’s good enough, especially when combined with his Go Up and Get It and Initiate Physicality traits, to turn into tangible results. We can say with a degree of confidence that Ewin will be a strong rebounder and screener at the NBA level. But we also see avenues to improvement because he simply wants to be in the muck of it.

Very Good: On-Ball Experimentation

Again, we see ceiling limitations in that these improvement scores are falling short of basketball’s greats. But Ewin likely has more juice than people think. My favorite quality of Ewin’s is his tendency to gallop down the floor with the ball, serving little functional purpose but displaying coordination and creativity with ballhandling. He’s an effective ball custodian for his size, turning it over a solid 12.5% of the time on over a drive per game (fellow 6’10” big Johni Broome turned it over 16.9% of the time, by comparison).

Ewin’s 83 midrange attempts isn’t too impressive on the surface, but the attempts were difficult and often highly creative. Ewin has a complex layup package for his size, and isn’t afraid to try difficult moves through traffic (with some brilliant moments of small-space coordination). Ewin also experiments amply as a passer, slinging live dribbles from wing to wing or kicking from the post, just generally an interesting problem-solver on the ball.

On-ball experimentation is obvious in its value for improvement: the more you simply try things, the greater capacity you have to learn what does or does not work, and the greater opportunity to iron out technique. Ewin’s role was somewhat encouraging of his experimentation, but hampered by a clogged paint. Ewin even got some pick-and-roll ball-handler reps this past season, where he showed off his handle, passing and touch for size. He’s a real conductor threat at the NCAA level, and with another season of experimentation under his belt, could develop in unexpected ways.

Very Good: Technique

Much like one’s motor, technique is fairly obviously essential for star players to have, but is often overlooked nonetheless. Steve Nash, for example, would have been an impossible future All-Star projection unless one properly valued just how rare his technical game was. For Malique Ewin, we again get above-average marks, signaling capacity for continued growth as a basketball player.

My favorite insight into Ewin’s technical prowess is his screening, again playing off of his other essential traits of initiating physicality and having a high motor. Ewin squares his shoulders at perfect angles, maximizing impact while staying within the bounds of the rulebook, setting up the ball handler for his optimal route. Ewin weighed in at 240 pounds this summer at Arkansas, ten pounds heavier than a year before, a tank for applying this physicality surgically.

This strong technique shows up in how he uses his body generally, great at properly boxing out as well as finding the right angle to post up deep in the lane. These are small areas which add up given the frequency of screening and necessity of bigs to punish mismatches in the post. Even a few extra inches of wiggle room for a ballhandler to operate is amplified when Ewin sets a screen the majority of possessions. To steal from Josh Url, that’s also advantage creation.

Ewin has strong technique as a dribble-pass-shoot threat given his size, but imperfections still exist with his poor free throw shooting and limited handle complexity. However, we have now demarcated a bevvy of traits which combine nicely. On-ball experimentation mixes with technique to again give Ewin some odds of conducting offense, even if in limited capacity. The short roll suits him well, a thunderous dunker with space who can hit middies and also find shooters (now that he has some). I would bet on him looking like one of the better offensive engines among bigs this NCAA season.

Where He Falls Short

There’s only one improver trait that falls short of a Very Good grade, and that’s small space coordination. A rarer quality even among improvers, small space coordination can vault mediocre players into great ones. This quality means the ability to dance through traffic with precision, displayed by players like Manu Ginobili, Kevin Durant or Pascal Siakam. Coordination to fit through small spaces vastly expands what is feasible and what is not, as major space creation is less necessary.

Ewin does not entirely lack this type of coordination, particularly nimble on spin moves to the basket and precise when setting screens, boxing out or posting up. But his footwork is still generally heavy, another reason why his drive rate was not higher. Lacking both a one-two punch and small space coordination severely limits Ewin’s upside as a scorer.

Ewin generally does well on the characteristics that define improvers, but falls short of perfect for any trait. A better spaced offense might allow for a higher drive rate, perhaps displaying small space coordination we did not get to witness at Florida State. But generally, Ewin is high-feel and plays to punish his opponent. It’s likely he continues to improve.

Wrapping Up

Ewin scores similarly on star traits to improver traits, competent to very good across the board. But he lacks true outlier characteristics anywhere besides his ability to high-point the ball on rebounds or lobs. Good feel and good technique will carry him further, and combine with on-ball experimentation to mean he could surprise people as a conductor, even with the competition leap from the lowly ACC.

The rebounding and screening look to be very strong, with translatability likely. It’s the scoring that will hold him back, though better midrange percentages might be on the way given his high difficulty level of attempts at FSU. He is best suited to being a short roll maestro, especially considering his complete lack of three-point shot (although, it is reported he did shoot threes pre-NCAA).

Ewin is in for a big season in the SEC, likely to be competing for All-Conference teams in a more conducive environment on a team that wins more games. With a potential leap in drive and assist rates enabling more experimentation, Ewin could look like a clear-cut NBA draft pick by mid-season.

The post Summer Sleepers: Malique Ewin appeared first on Swish Theory.

That’s what this annual column is for (see 2022, 2023 and 2024 versions): How did I evaluate this NBA draft cycle, how does it compare to years’ past and how will I adjust for 2025-26? Where does my process fit into the greater universe of basketball understanding, and how can it get better? These are questions I believe more should ask.

I published the below graphic at the end of my last piece with The Stepien before it shut down. It is easy to get bogged down with the evaluatory framework I outline on the far right. You read consensus views from major outlets, then either take them at face value or come up with a shortcut reason why this is not the case. Many use the middle approach, relative scouting, ordering by category / archetype (i.e. primaries first) and then comparing within that group. I have aimed for something I like to call absolute scouting, that is, looking at a player’s current ability while assessing with an eye to what they may become. This process can be amplified by the other two, but is ultimately the “truest” evaluatory framework, giving the player himself center stage.

But even within absolute scouting there are endless approaches. This column tracks the evolution of my evaluatory framework to better project NBA careers at the time of the draft.

Forbidden Knowledge

My thesis last year went something like this: if a player is productive on the court, making things happen almost by accident, exhibits high feel, and also demonstrates a high level of athleticism, that is the type of prospect I would want to invest in. The draft is about chasing outliers, and outliers tend to show themselves in those three arenas.

This strategy led to some major out-of-consensus calls. The highest profile call was placing Zach Edey #1 atop my 2025 NBA draft board. Edey was productive in a way I expected to translate at the next level, particularly his rim volume, offensive rebounding and screen-setting. He has made significant improvements to both his feel and athleticism over his college career, items you could notice even evolving over the course of his rookie season, and despite a nagging foot injury. Finding a way to be useful for an above-average Grizzlies team while drastically shifting from his college role, I still have high hopes for the big.

I also had Jonathan Mogbo as a clear-cut lottery talent, finishing as my #5 prospect, then drafted by the Toronto Raptors to kick off the second round. Mogbo finished #18 in the class in minutes played, able to get rotation and occasional starter playing time. While only 22nd in the class in points scored, Mogbo is #8 in the class in rebounds, #7 in assists, #5 in steals and #12 in blocks after his rookie season. While still a bad player overall – he was one of the worst finishers in the league, exchanging his lob finishes in college for off-the-dribble lays too far from the hoop – Mogbo has quickly proven he can do as many non-scoring things on the court as anyone in the class. In some ways, he’s adapted from mid major to NBA competition better than I expected. I’d still bet on him, particularly given his immediately above-average defense and the weakness of the 2025 class otherwise. Should the passing continue to click and his teammates become more comfortable finding him on lobs, the path to offensive value is there. He came out of the gate as one of the NBA’s most bothersome defenders.

My other two big swings near the top were Oso Ighodaro and Terrence Shannon Jr. as late lottery bets, consistent rotation players. While minutes for both were up and down, both showed enough for me to remain encouraged.

The Ten Dimensions

This year, however, I wanted to become more literal in assessing player value. This led me to inspecting the game by “dimensions of impact,” where I categorize each type of contribution into ten groupings. I based these on how one interacts with the ball and court in literal manners, inspecting each realm in close detail, creating clear as possible delineations among categories.

The ten categories within three skill groupings:

• On-Ball Interactions: Three point shooting, midrange shooting, rim finishing, handle, passing
• Off-Ball Interactions: Grabbing/deflecting the ball, ground coverage, positioning
• Physical Force: Pace-force, strength-force

However, no two traits have the same impact of the game; I would have to weight each area of impact. I constructed these weights and inputted values for each player on my board with endless tinkering, informed by tape watch, statistical assessment, philosophical inquiries into how the game is won. The heaviest weights went to three point shooting and positioning, two areas of impact I only added more and more weight to as I back-tested to current and historical NBA players.

But this has limits, too. Namely, skills on the court interact with each other in varied and unusual ways. Even though both combinations provide additional value, a player’s ability to finish at the rim is more advantageous when mixed with a strong handle than if it were mixed with great rebounding. While rim touch + rebounding equals putback potential, handle + rim touch means an extremely deadly drive threat. A team is able to scale that up and gain secondary benefits off of that more than the other combo. There are synergies and frictions across skillsets that make performance better or worse. You can’t just add up skills.

How Good Are You?

My solution? To throw away the ladder, yet again, to construct a new one. Having advanced my ability to inspect skillsets by interaction type, how each player impacts the game became much clearer. But basketball evaluation is even more mystical than that, especially in the absence of a well-constructed statistical model.

So, my answer was simple: ask myself, “how good is this player, on offense and defense?”

I decided to use Estimated Plus-Minus projection as my peg, not taken too literally but a useful impact curve where one can ascertain, as long as with context on role, a rough approximation of how good a player is. Not perfect, but more dynamic than skillset grading.

I’ve said it before, but draft projection is primarily an exercise in imagination. Even if I graded each player’s current skillset perfectly, there are more complex interactions between qualities shown today as it relates to future skill development. For example, a high feel, coordinated player may be more likely to develop a shot than one who doesn’t have those underlying foundations.

It is also extremely difficult to anticipate where development may arise, to the point of it being easier to rather say, here are the way this player might improve, and here are the odds of each happening. I back into this assessment by projecting into multiple scenarios: the future has not been set.

A New Dynamic

My philosophy has generally been extremely pro-risk, for two simple salary arbitrages, in addition to the fact that I can’t get fired: 1.) a team gets its most value out of paying only a max contract amount to a player worth far more, and 2.) if a player doesn’t work out, his minutes go to zero, limiting the downside impact. These are two HUGE incentives, as it is very difficult to compete if you aren’t getting plus-max value out of one player, making even multiple busts less damaging.

However, my strategy did evolve somewhat towards the end of this cycle. I changed my board to become dynamic, first ranking the top of my board by 80th percentile outcomes only – still keeping it high risk for the players whose talent makes it worthwhile. Then, towards the end of the lotto, the assessment becomes 50/50 between a player’s 80th percentile outcome and 50th percentile outcome. By pick 30, my calculation will only be considering median outcome, omitting the ceiling factor at all.

I made this change for an obvious reason I had been ignoring: it is simply impossible to develop an entire roster of projects at the same time. If a player isn’t deemed as high ceiling, he simply will not get the developmental reps to push through to those higher percentile outcomes. In this way, it is more worthwhile to take the bird-in-hand once you get past the obvious star bets. My changed formula accounts for this.

In addition, I should not be ranking my board, as an outsider not working for a team, based on salary arbitrage opportunities, rather than by how I expect the long-term results to shake out.

The Winners and Losers

My outlier calls this year included four bigs or big wings with shooting questions: South Carolina’s Collin Murray-Boyles, Georgetown’s Thomas Sorber, Creighton’s Ryan Kalkbrenner and Arkansas’ Adou Thiero. They went #9 to Toronto, #15 to Oklahoma City, #34 to Charlotte and #36 to Los Angeles Lakers, respectively, but I would have taken all four much higher.

Collin Murray-Boyles is perhaps my boldest take, finishing #2 on my Big Board. “CMB” is a tank at Draymond Green dimensions, and has shown a non-shooting skillset, defensive acumen and physicality that indeed do remind one of the Hall of Famer. Draymond is one-of-one as a processor, but Murray-Boyles has lightning quick reaction time and excellent understanding of the floor, too. He does not have the vertical pop of Charles Barkley, but CMB does mimic him in carving out space around the basket, constantly. The most important commonality is the physicality and processing speed, and CMB is far ahead of his age for both.

For a glimpse into the degree of impact CMB had on South Carolina’s woeful squad, I calculated the number of points at the rim SC would score or allow when Murray-Boyles was on or off. South Carolina scored THIRTEEN more points at the rim when he was on than off, and allowed SEVEN fewer points at the rim in the same scenarios. That offensive figure is more than double the second most among his 2025 comps, and defensive figure third to stalwarts Thomas Sorber and Amari Williams.

CMB has perhaps the best hands in the class, and they synergize nicely with not just his defensive but also his offensive game. Murray-Boyles learned how to better manipulate the ball when driving to the basket over the season, using his intelligence for when to attack to find seams just large enough to let his stellar touch take over. CMB was in the 85th percentile for layup efficiency, and top ten in the country in rim finishing among anyone with 150+ makes. Only Derik Queen was close among underclassmen, and CMB is six months younger despite being the higher grade.

Murray-Boyles is able to conduct traffic, palming the ball in the high post, one spin away from the hoop. He will operate more out of the short roll in the NBA, and thankfully with better shooters (even with the Raptors’ subpar personnel, they exceed his 31.6% three-point shooting college team). He is better than a connective passer, able to hit small windows and create advantages with his sense of timing, leading his teammate into space.

CMB provides rim protection, elite rebounding, on-ball disruption (he is particularly strong blitzing and recovering) and leads the defense when guarding away from the ball. He is the best defensive prospect in a class full of very strong bets in Cooper Flagg, Thomas Sorber, Noah Penda, or perhaps second to Joan Beringer. He does that while being one of the best driving big men in the country, putting up a very strong 0.92ppp on over 100 drives. He thrived out of isos as the season went on, scoring nearly five points per game out of the play type over South Carolina’s final six games. Check out the versatility in the clips below.

It is rare to find obvious defensive disruptors of this level who also have this kind of offensive potential. He almost certainly won’t be a very useful three point shooter, but he has nearly everything else (I’m even hopeful about the midrange).

On the downside, I thought players like Ace Bailey, Egor Demin, Nolan Traore, Hansen Yang and Will Riley went over-drafted. A common theme for these players is being young and high-risk while needing a good amount of touches to approach their ceiling. With my new system, their upside outcomes do not quite drag them up the list high enough to use the 80th percentile calculation, rather being graded on their less thrilling median outcomes.

Four of the five are skinny for NBA players at their heights, with the exception of the slow-footed Hansen Yang. Returning again to our synergies, a weaker frame mixes extremely poorly with on-ball potential, unless you’re a Haliburton-esque conductor, or Shai-esque scorer, both nearly perfect at capitalizing on space creation specificity. This does not mean the path is closed – I’m especially still high on Ace Bailey as a late lottery option – but not the bets I would make with the group compared to where they were drafted unless you can spot the magic. All five have magical moments, no doubt, but lack consistency and are likely to face struggles as they adjust to NBA physicality.

CMB is, on the other hand, extremely difficult to tilt off his spot, making those on-ball reps more consistent and allowing him to explore the studio space in a safer manner. I was also high on Javon Small, Max Shulga and Joan Beringer, all with BMIs higher than all but Yang from the group of players I was lower on. Small’s physicality allows him to drive and dunk through traffic, set up offense without being knocked off his spot. Shulga is broad-shouldered, allowing him to wall off drives and switch up. Joan Beringer, despite being one of the youngest in the class, has been able to bulk up some, on his way to becoming one of the NBA’s best rim protectors. If I have one regret so early, it would be not ranking Beringer in my top ten. The defensive instincts and physical tools give him an extremely lofty ceiling, even with mediocre offense, and he already seems good enough to say his defensive floor is safe, too.

An Eye to 2026

2025 was a fantastic class to evaluate, extremely deep in starter bets. I ended up ranking Jase Richardson around 20, and even so would not be surprised at all if he carved out a starter spot, overcoming his 178-pound frame by being so effective and technical playing off the ball. He was a painful player to rank even that low, given how high his feel for the game is and proven technique, though I remain concerned about his lack of a right and limited defensive ceiling.

2026 promises to be thrilling at the top, as Cameron Boozer, Darryn Peterson and AJ Dybantsa all vie for the top spot. My early leanings rank them in that order, with Boozer vs. Darryn vs. Flagg being very tough to discern.

My biggest adjustment will be getting more accustomed to projecting peak impact, but I want to tweak my ratings system to become even more risk-averse as you go down. I will do so by implementing a 20th percentile outcome which becomes the ranking priority starting at pick 30. With each round of new tape or statistical analysis, making those projections gets a little easier.

As usual, I expect that evaluation criteria to evolve over time.

The post Lessons from the 2025 NBA Draft Cycle appeared first on Swish Theory.

Listed at 6’10”, Rutgers Scarlet Knights, Freshman, 18.9 on draft day

Ace Bailey is a dynamo, a blistering midrange scorer where he shot 46% with only 27% of his makes assisted.

Much of the damage was done on midrange pull-ups: he was 40 for 110 there (36%). His very high volume of 3.7 midrange pullup attempts per game places him 32nd in the country as an 18-year-old, exceeding the figures of teammate and presumptive #2 pick Dylan Harper who ranked 235th and shot only 28%. Cooper Flagg also took about half the midrange pullup attempts per game of Ace, and similarly shot a decent bit worse than him there at 33%.

In the first clip above, one of my favorites of the cycle, seen from a better angle, Ace goes from this positioning:

To this tiptoeing the sideline:

Then gathering from his low stance to rise and fire over the help:

I harp on small space coordination for a reason: it is one of the traits I identified as characteristic of all the NBA’s recent greatest improvers (players like Pascal Siakam and Devin Booker). I wrote the following: “On offense, small space coordination not only means being nimble enough to create an initial advantage, but, arguably more important, the ability to dance through traffic. We return to a similar concept as the previous sections – the ability to finish a play.”

Small space coordination leads to improvement because it gets you reps others cannot receive. It opens up creative pathways to score and allows you to pick your spots more accurately. Ace Bailey, with his nimble footwork, will be able to experiment with scoring techniques others could only imagine.

In the midrange one has to not only deal with their immediate defender but some level of help as well. This dual focus makes small space coordination all the more important, squeezing through gaps closing in on two sides. This is not like three point shooting where shooting over a closeout rules supreme.

What else does Ace exhibit in his midrange game? Most notable, fluidity and creativity. Take as another example from the above highlight reel his midrange make against Kennesaw State.

Ace gathers with a pro hop, attacking at an oblique angle to the basket from the wing to the paint:

But instead of rising up out of this gather, he expertly ducks and turns back the direction he came:

This leaves the defender completely in the dust where he now has a fairly uncontested turnaround.

If you put all of the shotmakers of Ace’s ilk in this situation, it is highly unlikely anyone else would have come up with the same solution. For someone broadly considered with worse feel for the game than his peers (as shown by his 0.6 assist to turnover ratio), Ace has plenty of moments of genius in a pinch.

This is to speak nothing of his actual shooting form. That analysis is more subjective, but still worthwhile. Bailey’s strength comes from his ability to keep his form regardless of the angle he’s firing from, working well with his proclivity for quick fadeaways.

Just look at that follow through and holding of pose in spite of his lower body being angled off to his left.

Finally, Ace is great at simply throwing it up there. He was elite with both floaters (14 for 23, 61%) and barely missed any of the few hooks he attempted (7 for 9, 78%). The fact that he is able to guide the ball to the rim from unstructured shooting forms is a great sign for his touch. Check out the final minute of the highlight reel above for some examples, in addition to this impressive make.

Bailey has all the tools as a midrange shotmaker: the height and speedy and high release to get his shot off with ease. The creativity to find unusual finishing patterns. The touch from any kind of angle. Expect him to be shooting through narrow midrange windows his whole career, handle pending.

#2: Tre Johnson

Listed at 6’6”, Texas Longhorns, Freshman, 19.3 on draft day

Tre Johnson is the first 2x superlative winner in this series after being our #1 three point prospect.

His shooting form once again stands out, as does his versatility of set up.

The makes in the above video display finishes in the following manners:

• Drift forward left
• Fade back right
• Quick stop moving right
• Spin fade right
• Drift forward right
• Up and under floater
• Up and under floater
• Quick stop floater

Johnson is particularly adept at drifting just as much as necessary to counterbalance his forward momentum, often slowing just in time as he rises up.

This mixes well with his stutter rip tendency / ability, creating the seam needed to hit with a quick burst, then counterbalanced after a single hard dribble.

Statistically, Tre was a better pull-up three point shooter (at 38%) than pull-up two point shooter (36%) on equally heavy volume at just under 100 attempts each. I attribute much of the worse two point shooting to variance, as the technique is there, but he does force some difficult shots to suppress the efficiency.

With Johnson’s ability to push for difficult attempts, it can be easy to write him off as low feel. Indeed, I do have a concern there (it was especially difficult to see him repeatedly wave for the ball at 0:25 above), especially given his upright driving nature. But, moreso than Bailey, Johnson has so many tools in his repertoire it would be impossible to get here without study and dedication.

I am particularly impressed by Johnson’s ability to pair a midrange fadeaway with an up-and-under floater. You have to leap to contest the 6’6” Johnson’s attempt (he shot 50% in the post), leaving you vulnerable to a fake and pivot forward. His touch does the rest of the work – Johnson shot 23 for 55 on floaters.

While I remain very pessimistic on Johnson’s defensive ability, particularly his poor rebounding, his nuclear scoring ability seems likely to translate in some form. He has too many weapons at his disposal, with balance and technique providing the base. His ability to both quickly organize off of movement and finish with just the right drift can make up for his lack of separation when he hangs onto the ball for longer. The habits may need some refining, and the on-court product might be rough at first, but Johnson remains a compelling lottery bet regardless.

#3: Tahaad Pettiford

Listed at 6’1”, Auburn Tigers, Freshman, 19.9 on draft day

Shooting 43% with Auburn on 40 pull-up twos and, more importantly, 52% on 35 floaters, Pettiford was an easy third option here. Evident in the tape is his consistent ability to not only separate off the dribble, but flow perfectly into his pull-up following these dramatic moves.

The first clip above displays this as well as any. Tahaad pulls off a two-step step-back and knocks it down clean. This reveals not only great balance but precision of footwork.

Just as important, Pettiford has an extra quick release, rising off the ground in an instant. You could call Pettiford’s ability to adapt to his smaller stature a cauterized wound – a consistent physical deficit that you have learned to overcome in a way where it’s no longer harmful. Think of Alperen Sengun becoming a plus defender despite his lack of foot speed, or Pettiford’s high-arching floaters. Cauterizing one’s wound most often requires a high degree of both adaptability and creativity.

Pettiford is comfortable pulling up from both directions, and looks about as adept with right hand floaters as his dominant left. The road is uphill for guards of Pettiford’s size – we are likely to find his 6’1” listing as generous – but his cauterized wound of size is compensated by an elite adaptability of shooting. Pettiford is worse at the rim than he is on floaters, but is likely to be operating much more outside of the paint anyways. There is more space out there for him to grab in a flurry of footwork.

While I generally shy away from small guards who are highly likely to be -1 or worse per 100 possessions on defense, Pettiford is still worth a first round flyer due to his ability to work between the paint and three point line and pass outside in. His assist rate of 23% is unusually high for players at his level of shotmaking, where only 11% of his midrange makes were assisted. Compare that to Ace Bailey at 27%, Tre Johnson at 18% or Tyler Herro at 21%. There’s a chance Pettiford can make the poor defense worth it, especially as a bench sparkplug.

Value Analysis

Midrange scoring is fairly obviously less important than three point shooting, but it is a mistake to either shrug it off as a viable weapon to keep defenses honest or assume a player’s skillset or ability is basically the same as the three. It is very difficult to create plus efficiency offense from midrange, with the highest volume midrange shooters averaging around 0.8 to 1.05 points per shot. But not all shots are created the same, and the midrange can be a fantastic counter for the elite of the elite who can hit the majority of open midrange looks. If you have to be covered in midrange as aggressively as at the rim or from three, it can pinch in or disorganize the defense in a similar manner.

The post 2025 NBA Draft Superlatives: Midrange Scorers appeared first on Swish Theory.

This series will inspect all ten categories by highlighting three standout performers for each trait. My hope is that my process for evaluating this trait will improve with the exercise, inspecting my own criteria, while also recognizing just how rare each trait is.

First up, perhaps the most important category of all: three point shooting.

Note the rankings relate to who will have the most three point success in the NBA more than the most three point talent (eliminating specialists like the incredible shooter Koby Brea).

#1: Tre Johnson

Listed at 6’6”, Texas Longhorns, Freshman, 19.3 on draft day

Tre Johnson’s greatness as a three-point shooter is perhaps the most self-evident of the draft, as it takes only one shot of his to react, “Oh, he can shoot.” The aesthetics are stellar: Johnson has an appropriately wide base, hopping light into the shot before rising up with intention.

Look at how he perfectly squares from a 90-degree gather in one of the clips above:

He perfectly angles his shooting pocket:

And snaps his wrist hard while releasing high:

It is hard to ask for more in a shooting form, with his fluidity especially notable given his 6’6” height.

He meets very high thresholds for outside shooting, statistically. High major freshmen with his level of three point volume and efficiency are rare, as all 6’3” or above NCAA players with his profile have stuck in the NBA.

His flexibility of gather, skilled in footwork, allows him to be successful in all kinds of actions:

• 17 for 31 (55%) on threes running off of screens
• 23 for 52 (44%) on threes in transition
• 12 for 28 (43%) on threes out of pick and roll
• 5 for 12 (42%) off of handoffs

The two lagging in efficiency are spot ups (24 for 71, 34% from three) and isos (7 for 25, 28% from three). He was surprisingly just as efficient on guarded catch and shoot (42%) than unguarded (39%), with the open ones actually dragging down his spot up efficiency. Given his fundamentals and success hitting the difficult ones, I’m not too worried about him figuring out the simple. In fact, he was 44% on unguarded threes in his final high school season.

I have gotten higher on Tre Johnson over this process, as his elite three-point versatility matches his elite three-point efficiency. The isolations are the one concern, as he struggles to create space, but hopefully will represent only a small volume of his NBA looks. His ability to counter when the defense commits in pick-and-roll (39th %ile efficiency, including passes) is also a concern for his overall shotmaking difficulty, but he has the talent and range to overcome it. While that lack of quick burst and the defense hold back his ceiling, his combination of nuclear shooting off of movement and strong passing instincts makes him impossible to pass up in the lottery.

#2: Walter Clayton Jr.

Listed at 6’3”, Florida Gators, Senior, 22.3 on draft day

Walter Clayton Jr.’s appeal is also immediately clear in the tape, but for a different reason: the degree of difficulty. In particular, Clayton Jr. is elite from NBA distance, having to be covered far beyond the NCAA three-point line.

This is a major defensive breakdown:

As is this:

Also obvious from the tape is how comfortably Clayton Jr. gathers both left to right and right to left off of movement or the dribble. His core strength allows him to stay square with torque when rising up in an instant. He is an extremely confident shooter, ensuring he commits to every shot with intent.

Perhaps even at a better level than Johnson, Clayton Jr. can re-square his shoulders rapidly. Because he is smaller but a good leaper, he can spring in any direction to counter-balance his motion. It’s a delight to watch.

Despite what had to be among the most difficult three-point diets in the NCAA, Clayton Jr.’s three-point percentage was very good at 38.6% on 303 attempts, seventh most in the country. He also shot a stellar 87.9% from the line on 481 career free throw attempts. After this past season, there is plenty of evidence that Clayton Jr. is an elite shooter.

Clayton’s core strength and comfortability moving laterally, confidence in his shot all allow him to be successful in a variety of play types. In fact, Clayton was 71st percentile efficiency or better in seven different play types:

• 42% on 45 threes in transition
• 40% on 75 threes spotting up
• 39% on 23 threes off of screens
• 36% on 14 threes in isolation
• 36% on 42 threes off of handoffs
• 35% on 102 threes as pick and roll ball handler

Walter Clayton Jr. is an obvious bet to be a nuclear NBA shooter, due to his ability to pull up quickly from distance as well as off of movement. His resume is excellent, leading a great Florida team through the NCAA tournament. Difficulty means streakiness, but Clayton is on far more often than he is off, and when he is on, he can drive a scoring run single-handedly.

The downsides come elsewhere, namely in his somewhat below-average handle and passing for a 6’3″player, which keeps him from having creation equity. He can sometimes fall asleep on defense (such as in the final moments of the NCAA championship game) but makes up for it with elite recovery tools (displayed in the few moments after, in addition to strong 2.5% steal and 1.8% block rates over his college career).

Because Clayton Jr. is 6’3”, a good leaper and capable of getting threes up with volume like no other in this class, he resembles a first-round pick. Even if the non-shooting traits lag, they are good enough to stay on the floor to allow his shooting to shine.

#3: Kon Knueppel

Listed at 6’7”, Duke Blue Devils, Freshman, 19.9 on draft day

Kon Knueppel’s excellence might not be as obvious as that of Clayton Jr. or Johnson. He shines through technique, consistency, and, well, track record.

We have enough data on Knueppel to suggest he is an elite shotmaker. Let’s start with catch and shoot. Knueppel has now had three consecutive seasons of shooting over 40% on catch-and-shoot threes, giving him a career 42% mark on 419 catch-and-shoot looks.

Despite the dip in his form, Knueppel has an otherwise compact motion, easily repeatable. My favorite thing about the form is he “finishes heavy,” that is, exaggerates the end of his form to get extra lift but also gain consistency of motion.

He typically fully lands back on the ground while still holding his follow-through:

This consistency of technique, in addition to a low center of gravity, permits Kon to rise up off the catch even off of movement.

The pull-up figures are iffier, with little success at Duke. But looking at the EYBL statistics and tape gives one much more comfort.

When given more of a green light to let it fly – two pull-ups threes per game in Phenom 16-17U compared to 0.5 at Duke – he looks much more comfortable and flowy off the dribble. In fact, he was capable of shooting out of complex set ups like at the 0:50 mark of his highlight video above.

If Knueppel had been enabled to be an off-the-dribble gunner, I have no doubt his efficiency would have risen at Duke. Knueppel reminds me of Desmond Bane here: Bane has the instinct to put the ball on the floor even just once to induce a defender fly-by. With a similar high feel for picking his spots, I expect Knueppel to do the same with success.

Not too much commentary needed here; Knueppel is among the elite free-throw shooters. Of NCAA players with at least 100 free throw attempts, Knueppel ranked fifth in free throw percentage, the only one in the top ten 6’7″ or above.

Even with the poor pull-up shooting, Knueppel hit some gaudy marks for a high-major freshman. Since 2008, there have been only four other high-major freshmen in his vicinity: Tre Johnson, Ben McLemore, Jared McCain, and Tyler Herro. Kon meets the below thresholds with ease.

I’ve only gotten higher on Kon Knueppel with each subsequent watch. While my initial instinct was to fade him given the athletic limitations (the track record for players who miss most of their dunk attempts is not good), likely not 6’7”. However, his instincts for rotations and how to wall off drives keep him relevant on that end.

A minimum level of defensive contribution is all that is needed for Knueppel’s three point shooting to potentially take over games (not to mention his passing acumen). While not as much of an aesthetic/degree of difficulty play as Tre or Clayton, Knueppel has the track record and eye for technique / when to shoot that gives a high level of faith in his three ball being excellent. With his integration of other skills, draft Kon in the top 10.

Value Analysis

Three point shooting is the most prized ability in the titular “three point era,” and for a reason. Shooting from outside the furthest ring of the defense can be the most reliable way to generate looks. Our three three point shooters are able to do just that, bombing away even with small creases — all three are reliable to get a high volume of attempts in a variety of ways.

Simply, beating three levels of defense (perimeter defenders, help defenders, rim protectors) is the most valuable thing you can do on the court. Especially as three point volume is almost always scalable. If you want more threes, you can have them: the quality of the looks will decline, but it is unlike midrange or rim attempts which require a higher level of passing and/or dribbling to get there. For our three shooters, the area over which you have to cover them with their deep range and quick triggers is massive.

As this series goes on, I will try to note the relative value of each trait, and why. Threes are our first trait, but, from my analysis, also the single most valuable. Next up, we move slightly closer to the basket – the oft-theorized midrange.

The post 2025 NBA Draft Superlatives: Three Point Shooters appeared first on Swish Theory.