For this article, I interviewed Day’Ron about his journey and skills. I will reference that interview often. You can find it here.

After winning a Class 4A title as a high school junior, Sharpe transferred to the famous Montverde Academy. That 2019-20 roster boasts an incredible six NBA alumni. Four of them went in the 2021 draft: Cade Cunningham 1st overall, Scottie Barnes 4th, Moses Moody 14th, and Day’Ron at 29th. Caleb Houstan was picked 32nd the year after, and Dariq Whitehead 22nd the year after that. Suffice it to say, that is talent few other teams can match. Day’Ron asserts that no other high school could compete with them from any year. With a 25-0 record and 24 of those victories by double digits, they have as good a case as any team.

Sharpe went to UNC for college under the tutelage of Roy Williams. That squad possessed an imposing collection of talent as well. Armando Bacot, Garrison Brooks, and Leaky Black formed an impressive defensive trio in the starting group with a freshman backcourt of Caleb Love and RJ Davis, two future All-Americans. That left Sharpe as one of the first off the bench. Another future NBA talent, Walker Kessler, could only get nine minutes per game. And it wouldn’t be the last time Day’Ron had to sit behind more experienced players.

The 2021-22 Brooklyn Nets team that Sharpe was drafted to felt like a who’s-who of 2010s greats. Headlined by the trio of Kevin Durant, James Harden, and Kyrie Irving, this team was built to contend. Their frontcourt included LaMarcus Aldridge, Blake Griffin, and Paul Millsap. Of all the greats on this team, Sharpe credits James Johnson as the most impactful veteran for his career.

By his own admission, Day’Ron didn’t have his mind right upon entering the league. He wasn’t the first to be there or the last to leave. He didn’t value winning the way he should have. Johnson took the rookie big man under his wing, taught him how to build good habits, and instilled a desire to compete. Four years later, Day’Ron is looking to pass that same spirit to a Nets team rebuilding from the exodus of Durant, Irving, and Harden.

It’s safe to say that Sharpe has dealt with as many changing circumstances and expectations as any fourth-year player can. Most importantly, he’s seen how to stick in this league in many ways. In this article, I’ll break down Sharpe’s strengths and limitations, potential growth areas, and look to the future for this restricted free agent to see where his game can fit best. Let’s dig into it. As usual, all stats I list are per Cleaning the Glass.

Offensive Overview

Sharpe set many career highs offensively this past season. He posted the most points and assists per game of his career. His free-throw percentage also jumped nearly 20 points to 79%. The underlying stats are more noteworthy to me. He took more midrange shots and upped his percentage from 37% to 44%. Sharpe tripled his three-point attempts and increased his percentage as well, from 25% to 28%. Most importantly, his assist percentage and assist-to-usage rate went up with his increase in usage rate.

Individual improvements are essential, but team context is everything. Brooklyn was 6.6 points per 100 possessions better on offense with Sharpe on the floor. That wasn’t due to some massive increase in efficiency, free-throw drawing, or taking extra care of the ball. It was due to Sharpe’s foremost skill.

Offensive Rebounding

When Day’Ron is on the floor, Brooklyn’s offensive rebounding rate increases by 10.8%. That’s the highest on/off OREB% mark of any player in the league. His offensive rebounding rate of 15.4% was a 98th percentile mark in the league. He brings it all: hustle, positioning skill, physicality, and jump timing.

These extra possessions Sharpe creates are immensely valuable. We’ve seen it as a theme throughout these playoffs. When efficiency bogs down and set plays go out the window, that guy who can create a second and third chance at the rim skyrockets in importance. Few players in the league create those chances the way Day’Ron can.

Rim Finishing

This is where things get spottier for Sharpe. In all four years, Sharpe has shot in the low 60s around the rim. He’s never been above the 28th percentile for bigs. Some of that is owed to the nature of his role; constantly tipping the ball around the rim leads to many misses. But there are also controllable aspects. Day’Ron has issues with loading his feet, finding proper positioning, and reading the rim protection.

I don’t expect Sharpe to suddenly become a 75%-ish rim finisher by cleaning up technical aspects of his game. He’s still going to have a lot of tip-ins go awry, and it’s in his nature to try relentlessly to get that final putback. Still, some work on positioning and loading his jumps would significantly improve these numbers.

Screen Actions

The 2024-25 season saw a ton of improvement for Sharpe in screen actions. He has a lot of utility on and off the ball, and sets great picks that free his teammates in a variety of situations.

I came away very impressed with his DHO game. Not only did he set strong screens, he made good passing reads and had a good sense of when to keep the ball and self-create.

His role as a DHO hub was crucial for a team lacking structure. So many new faces searching for offensive roles and identities. Sharpe’s ability to pass, screen, and make himself available for passes significantly raised this group’s floor. A play finisher learning to create those plays for others brings immense value to any team.

Odds and Ends

Most of Sharpe’s offensive value comes from screening, cutting, and offensive rebounding. He’s still finding ways to show skill in other areas, and I’m encouraged by his development as a shooter. He shoots an easy ball and the results have continued to perk up.

Day’Ron told me that the skill he is looking forward to developing the most is his shooting. Becoming an all-around contributor to the offense is paramount to his development. Another way he finds to contribute is in transition. Despite his hulking frame, Sharpe can move quickly in the open floor.

Watching his offensive talent grow with each passing game is a treat. At only 23 years old, it’s hard to put a definite ceiling on his growth, but I see him in the mold of Steven Adams with extra skill. Elite second-chance creation and screening talent can get you far. Adams grew a lot as a passer, but the shooting never materialized. Sharpe may find a way to be more of an outside shooter and DHO keeper threat. It’s the kind of offensive contributor many teams will be looking for.

Defensive Overview

Brooklyn posted a better-than-expected defense for a team that felt like an island of misfit toys. They finished 20th in total defensive rating, largely due to head coach Jordi Fernandez’s instilled competitive factor. The Nets deployed an aggressive style of defense designed to throw other teams off their game, and Sharpe was part of that equation.

With Day’Ron on the floor, the Nets had a 111.7 defensive rating. That’s a 77th percentile mark. Of course, a lot of this came from his best all-around skill.

Defensive Rebounding

Sharpe’s defensive rebounding rate isn’t as stellar as his offensive rebounding rate. A 63rd percentile mark is nothing to sneeze at, to be sure, but it begs questions. Those are largely answered by this Brooklyn rebound scheme, where Sharpe’s job was to find the best offensive rebounder and wipe them out of the play. His determination to box out was apparent on the tape.

I truly enjoyed his determination to box out the league’s most imposing players. Day’Ron said his favorite matchups are Ivica Zubac, Jonas Valanciunas, and the Pistons duo of Isaiah Stewart and Jalen Duren. It’s not just effort here, it’s technical prowess. He works hard to get inside positioning and push as far back as possible. In the worst-case scenario, he gets positioning and refuses to lose ground. Sharpe also uses a good leg bend to make any OREB attempts over his back futile. If he loses inside position, he’s excellent at pushing his man under the rim to reduce their rebounding radius.

There’s more meat on the bone with his defensive rebounding numbers, but the technique and effort are sound. The defensive scheme employed in Brooklyn on ball screen actions can explain some of this gap.

Pick-and-Roll Defense

As previously mentioned, Sharpe had three coaches in three years. That was before the hiring of Jordi Fernandez. Jordi brings a defensive style that maximizes Brooklyn’s athleticism. Bringing in an extra degree of unpredictability helped their defense punch above their weight and win some games they weren’t expected to. That included some aggressive ball screen coverages, with Day’Ron square in the middle of it. The blitzing and showing came with mixed results:

Often, the lineups came with Cam Johnson in the corner rotating to shut off the roller. He’s plenty capable of being a rim deterrent at his size, but that’s not the issue here. Problems arose from Day’Ron’s recovery speed and the angles he chose. This was not an athleticism concern – he’s got that in spades. It’s a question of decisiveness and efficiency in my mind. Before this season, Day’Ron spent far more time in drop, something he’s alright at doing. He does have a block-hunting problem that’s shown up in past tape. Plays like this one were all too common:

But there are the flashes of brilliance, where he chains it all together: play recognition, urgency of movement, precise angles and timing. And they look beautiful.

I don’t mean to imply that things will simply click someday and Day’Ron can become a consistently great ball screen defender. It requires a lot of reps and hard work to get there. But reps and hard work don’t get you superb athletic gifts. Pairing that hard work with Sharpe’s natural talent will take him a long way. It’s an area I’m confident he can build in.

Rim Protection

Sharpe encounters the same problems protecting the rim outside the action as he does in the action. He’s inconsistent with his footwork, load times, and chases blocks too often. I don’t want to harp on that further; instead, I will look at the possessions where things come together. Those are a sight to see.

When his feet are organized and his jump is well-timed, Sharpe has an innate ability to locate the ball at all angles. That kind of ball tracking and length covers up a lot of gaps as a rim protector. With more consistent footwork and positioning, in addition to cleaning up the windows in which he chooses to go for a block, he could be a serious asset at the rim.

Odds and Ends

I also enjoyed Sharpe’s transition defense. He loves getting out and running to commit the right fouls at a minimum. At best, he can contest multiple shots and get some impressive blocks.

I’d like to see more of that engagement off the ball in the halfcourt. He was too prone to losing cutters and being late to recognize off-ball screeners, which is a common issue for young players at all positions. The good thing is the engagement shows up in other areas; Sharpe needs to show the same commitment to stopping easy buckets that he shows when a rebound is up for grabs. That’s easy to translate with the right mindset.

Future Outlook

At 23 years old, Sharpe’s restricted free agency will be an interesting watch. The Nets have a lot of cap space, but things are in flux. They have Nic Claxton paid up as a true center, so the idea of paying two bigs that shared the floor for just 29 possessions (+31 net rating, just saying…) is worth inspection. However, trade speculation around Claxton has continued for years and could come to a head this offseason. There is a real chance Sharpe could leave elsewhere or end up back in Brooklyn as a starter.

These NBA playoffs did him a lot of favors. Physical rebounders and screeners like Steven Adams made a huge statement in the era of shooting and small ball. DHO runners and gap fillers like Isaiah Hartenstein have proven immensely valuable. Sharpe’s work ethic will jump off the page for any team interested in his services, and his desire to improve his skill set is noteworthy. As is, an elite rebounder who sets nasty screens and operates within the flow ot the offense has a lot of utility. An improvement as a paint protector, shooter, and rim finisher could take him to a new level. Watch out for Day’Ron.

The post Finding a Role: Day’Ron Sharpe appeared first on Swish Theory.

VJ Edgecombe

Valdez (VJ) Edgecombe has been a projected top 5 pick wire to wire in this class. Despite a rocky start to the season, Edgecombe’s status as a blue chip recruit seemed well deserved after a freshman season that placed him in exclusive company.

As much as Bart Torvik queries have become a fraught subject amongst the draft community, when taking an Occam’s Razor approach it is apparent there’s not really a precedent for a player with Edgecombe’s intersection of feel, athleticism, and production becoming an abject failure in the league (barring unforeseen circumstances taking place in the case of Zhaire Smith).

So if Edgecombe has the pedigree and production, what consternation is there with his current standing near the top of the draft? To start, one may point to VJ’s suboptimal finishing at the rim. While Edgecombe ended the season at a solid 60% at the rim, his rim efficiency was largely inflated by his dynamic vertical athleticism and transition frequency. Just under 48% of Edgecombe’s rim-attempts came in transition, while in the halfcourt Edgecombe finished only 49% at the rim and a disconcerting 44% on half-court layups. However, this is not a novel insight; most publications and scouts have noted VJ’s half-court limitations for some time, with his unrefined ballhandling typically being pointed to as the culprit of his unimpressive rim-finishing. Per @henrynbadraft, Edgecombe’s relative weakness at the rim has been present since his time on the grassroots circuit. In the query below of top-50 RSCI players’ AAU statistics over the past 3 years, along with Edgecombe, these were the only players to have <53% on two-point attempts (2PA), <0.6 2PA/TSA (true shot attempt), and <0.1 FTA/TSA.

Of the 5 players here (excluding Edgecombe) to play over a 50% minutes share, their average rim-rate was 20.9% as a freshman. With the exception of VJ, these players were either three-point specialists or jumpshot-oriented creators. With VJ not falling into either bucket he was placed in a precarious position, how does one deploy a blue-chip recruit without a clearly defined offensive skillset? Early in the season, the fit could best be described as ‘trying to fit a square peg into a round hole’. Baylor runs a notoriously ballscreen-heavy offense, finishing this season in the 81st percentile in ‘Pick-and-Roll’ frequency, and over the last 5 years Baylor has never finished lower than the 77th percentile in this playtype.

Operating core ballscreen actions in the middle third of the floor, Edgecombe greatly struggled generating deep, quality paint touches. When asked to create from a standstill against a set defense as frequently as Edgecombe was, his high center of gravity caused issues changing direction off a live dribble, withstanding contact on drives, and altering stride length, all of which are critical components of any downhill driving game. The convergence of Edgecombe’s physical and skill limitations as a primary ballhandler is evident from the clips below.

When you pair this schematic emphasis on running ballscreens with one of the slowest paces in the country (Baylor finished 320/364 teams in Adjusted Tempo) you are left with a team uniquely suited to exacerbating Edgecombe’s weaknesses and suppressing his strengths. I believe this combination is the primary cause of Baylor’s offense being BETTER with Edgecombe on the bench. Per Hoop-Explorer, Baylor’s offense was 7.6 points better per 100 possessions. While the 479 possessions Edgecombe wasn’t on the floor isn’t the most robust sample, the underlying numbers fall in line with what the film suggests. Baylor’s shot quality suffered with Edgecombe running 24% of the team’s PNR actions per Synergy. Not only was Baylor less capable of generating threes and free-throw attempts, the QUALITY of three-point attempts was lower with Edgecombe on the floor, with the team shooting almost 2 less corner threes per 100 possessions.

Even if Edgecombe’s outlook as a downhill creator is replete with red flags, there are still other avenues Edgecombe could take to develop into a star-level offensive player. After all, despite getting off to a rough start shooting this season, Edgecombe’s shooting priors are near stellar. Coming into the year, Edgecombe had shot 39.1% on 274 threes and 79.9% on 134 free-throw attempts. These numbers indicate that Edgecombe developing into a potent off-the-dribble is well within the realm of possibility. And when looking at historical precedent, significant pull-up shooting development may be the most integral component to Edgecombe returning top-5 value. Below are all the players drafted in the lottery since 2010 who were: 6’5 or shorter, with 5 or fewer unassisted two-point makes per 100 possessions, and 30% or more of their two’s assisted (per Bart Torvik)

Virtually all of these players who returned positive expected value based on their draft slot developed into highly effective shooters off the dribble. And where it currently stands, Edgecombe is behind the curve in this respect. Compared to the players in the previous query, Edgecombe finished his pre-NBA season with the lowest volume AND tied for the 2nd worst efficiency on these pull-up twos.

Edgecombe’s lack of comfort shooting off the dribble is apparent on film, and another facet of his game limited by his handle. VJ cannot self-organize off multiple dribbles and take pull-up jumpers on balance currently, and the line between midrange attempts and floaters is frequently blurred when Edgecombe takes these shots.

Again, VJ’s issues shooting off the dribble date back to his pre-NCAA career and are rooted in his biomechanical issues. Edgecombe being a ‘high-hipped’ athlete who struggles decelerating is preventing him from leveraging his impressive straight-line speed to create space off the dribble. VJ’s proclivity for over-striding on drives limits how effectively he can generate power when he transitions into a pull-up jumper.

My current hypothesis is Edgecombe’s difficulty controlling his stride length while driving is what’s responsible for the discrepancy between VJ’s dynamism leaping off 2 feet, where he’s arguably the most explosive player in this draft class, versus 1 foot, where he’s struggled greatly relative to expectations. Baylor’s coaching staff made schematic changes for Edgecombe to improve his on-ball efficacy, from using guard-to-guard Ghost Screens to clear driving lanes…

…to using actions such as ’77 Shallow’ in order to simultaneously beat hedging ballscreen coverages and remove nail-help to aid Edgecombe’s drives.

However, neither adjustment bolstered Edgecombe’s efficiency to the desired extent. So this begs the question, if there’s reason for concern with regards to Edgecombe’s effectiveness as a pull-up shooter AND attacking the basket, is there any reason to believe Edgecombe’s profile warrants his lofty draft projection? As previously mentioned, Edgecombe’s deployment in an extremely ballscreen heavy offense was far from ideal, however his playtype distribution does not paint the full picture of how inconducive Baylor’s offense was for Edgecombe specifically.

The 3-man lineup of VJ Edgecombe, Norchad Omier, and Josh Ojianwuna makes up 22.5% of VJ Edgecombe’s total possessions played this season, however this lineup was on the floor for 26.9% of PNR possessions ran by Edgecombe this season. In Offensive Rating, this 3-man lineup was 22nd out of 25 Baylor lineups that played over 350 possessions, with this 3-man unit’s only saving grace being their relative strength on the offensive glass.

This lineup’s spacing issues only amplified Edgecombe’s aforementioned struggles as a primary ballhandler. Take the clips below, for example. This group of clips displays Baylor running ‘RAM PNP’, a staple of their ballscreen offense, where a player receives an off-ball screen before setting the middle ballscreen and ‘popping’ to the 3-point line. In the first clip, Baylor has the 2 bigs involved in the action, with Norchad Omier first receiving the off-ball screen before setting a ballscreen for Edgecombe. Notice how compacted the spacing is inside the arc, with Omier’s defender completely disregarding the popping Omier.

However, in the following clips, a ‘small’ sets the middle ballscreen for Edgecombe. Even in the first possessions with the action taking place against the same opponent in Tennessee, the improvement in shot quality is apparent.

The double-big lineups’ impact on tape was corroborated by VJ’s PNR data, as well.

Ultimately, this is a minuscule sample of possessions Edgecombe played with the double big lineup, and I do not want to make it seem as though these suboptimal lineups are totally responsible for VJ’s issues as a PNR ballhandler. However, I do think this data is key to realizing that Edgecombe’s outlook as a creator isn’t entirely doomed. Of players with ≥ 150 PNR + Passes possessions, Edgecombe was ranked in the 40th percentile in PPP, but in lineups with only one big Edgecombe’s 0.944 PPP was in the 66th percentile. Over the course of the season Baylor substituted these 3-man ballscreen actions with ‘Empty’ PNRs to ‘clear up’ the picture for Edgecombe on drives and place less strain on his handle. In these less complex ballscreen actions, Edgecombe’s processing (which well outpaces the functionality of his handle at this point) was able to truly shine.

My case for optimism in Edgecombe’s creation ability is relative to the position taken by his greatest detractors. The likelihood of VJ becoming a high-level PNR operator is slim-to-none in my opinion, but this doesn’t preclude the possibility of him becoming a highly valuable offensive player. The use case for VJ Edgecombe offensively just requires a degree of creativity.

For as many questions as I’ve raised regarding the functionality of VJ’s athleticism, there have only been a few players his size to reach certain athletic benchmarks. Below is a query I’ve run on players since 2010, where ‘Team Stock%’ is the share of a team’s steals+blocks a player logged. I decided to use this instead of steal and block rate to account for some noise introduced by team stylistic tendencies.

The only other players to appear alongside Edgecombe are players whose role I’ve termed ‘Utility Guards’, those with the size of perimeter players who can fulfill responsibilities typically associated with frontcourt players. This sort of role is where I see Edgecombe being best utilized. As VJ transitions to the NBA and his on-ball burden lessens, I would hope that Edgecombe is integrated as a stylistic wrinkle versus a featured piece. There may not be a team better at deploying their guards in such a manner than the Boston Celtics. With the acquisition of Jrue Holiday, the Celtics could place teams in conflict without deliberately involving Holiday in actions. By simply stationing Holiday in the Dunker Spot, the Celtics were afforded the luxury of having a player who could function as an outlet for their jumbo creators on drives and consistently win the rebounding battle versus like-sized perimeter players.

In the original ‘Utility Guard’ query I provided, pre-NBA 3-point volume and efficiency were listed. The relevancy of these stats outside of the obvious is the prevalence of the most consistent counter used to neutralize this archetype. I am currently writing this article as the Eastern Conference Finals takes place, and much has been made of Josh Hart’s ineffectiveness in the series, with the Knicks coaching staff going as far as removing Hart from the starting lineup. What has plagued Hart and many of these Swiss army knife players (at least offensively) is the lack of consistent spacing they provide. Opponents have experienced success defending these players with Centers and ignoring them on the perimeter. What makes the prospect of Edgecombe in this role especially tantalizing is the confidence I have in his ability as a spot-up shooter.

Granted, a significant portion of these attempts are from the high-school line, and Edgecombe has shot a paltry 24.4% (19/79) on off-the-dribble 3PA in the same timeframe. But at the same stage of their careers, Edgecombe is significantly further along as a spacer than players of a similar archetype, while also possessing the explosiveness to take advantage of opportunities as a screener like Gary Payton II in the clip below…

Or exploit cross-matches versus bigs in space, as he does to Henri Veesaar in the play below.

And as previously mentioned, Baylor’s PNR-heavy style being centered around smaller guards who couldn’t create advantages eradicated opportunistic scoring from Edgecombe’s shot diet. The few chances Edgecombe has had to attack from the weakside or get downhill versus a tilted floor, he delivered.

Obviously, there’s only so much accommodating a team would want to subject themselves to when it comes to a player drafted as high as VJ will be. However, a player capable of providing lineup and stylistic flexibility without compromising spacing or rebounding is scarcely made available at a rookie deal price point. This archetype’s dependence on high-leverage creators is undeniable, but this era of the NBA reflects the appeal of a prospect like VJ Edgecombe. Sacrificing the size traditionally associated with certain roles in favor of skill can pay massive dividends.

Miles Byrd

Any reservations to be had with Miles Byrd are fairly straightforward; a glance at a query of players with Byrd’s combination of size and scoring inefficiency yields a list almost bereft of long-tenured NBA contributors.

It wouldn’t be entirely off-base to say the only reason the majority of this list was even able to enter the draft pool was due to exceptional high school pedigrees. The obvious throughline between success cases of this query is their high-level defensive aptitude. There is definitely reason to believe Byrd’s defensive capabilities are enough to buoy his NBA prospects, as of the players in the above query, Byrd has the highest Block and Steal rate. To my surprise, however, Byrd’s impact on San Diego State’s defensive efficiency was muted relative to his statistical production on this end of the floor. Per Hoop-Explorer, San Diego State’s defense was only 2.5 points per 100 possessions better with Byrd On Court vs Off. Perhaps most unexpectedly though, SDSU’s Defensive Turnover Rate remained unchanged regardless of whether Byrd was playing or not!

Watching the tape, it is fairly easy to draw conclusions as to what could be behind the discrepancy between Byrd’s stellar event creation numbers, and the On-Off Splits. San Diego State runs an aggressive switching scheme, which incentivizes players to sacrifice ‘sound’ positioning in favor of forcing opponents into congested areas of the floor where they are more prone to committing turnovers. Byrd’s tape is littered with possessions where he is overhelping, or even throwing himself out of position by jumping passing lanes and attempting to create havoc.

Referencing SDSU’s defensive resume, there are two statistics that are key to elucidating Byrd’s directive schematically.

San Diego State was in the Bottom 10 in Opponent 3-point Rate, while leading the nation in Block Rate. It seems Head Coach Brian Dutcher was comfortable with trading off 3-point attempts as long as they were able to pack the paint and prevent their deep-lying shell from being compromised. This philosophy has been a defining trait of the Dutcher era, with SDSU ranking in the top 200 in opponent 3-point rate once in his 7 years at the helm, and outside the top 300 three times, including this year. SDSU’s Block% is relevant to their scheme and Byrd’s defensive evaluation because it empowered Byrd to take risks on the perimeter. If Byrd made an ill-advised gamble and provided the opponent a numerical advantage to attack, they still had to contend with a formidable frontcourt led by Magoon Gwath who finished 4th in the country in Block%.

Synthesizing this information initially led me to take a skeptical approach to Byrd’s defensive translatability. And prompted a less charitable interpretation of instances where Byrd’s point-of-attack defense faltered…

…or Byrd’s lack of strength seemed to be insulated by SDSU’s constant switching.

And while these were valid concerns at the time, taking a more holistic approach to Miles Byrd’s defensive profile incited me to revise my approach. But before delving deeper into the defensive side of things, I believe Byrd’s offense deserves further attention.

The Case for Miles Byrd’s Offense

Of the 68 teams in the NCAA Tournament field, San Diego State was 61st in Adjusted Offensive Rating, surpassing only the four 16 seeds in the field, Bryant, Troy, and Robert Morris in offensive efficiency. Historically speaking, San Diego State under Bryan Dutcher has never been a system conducive to high-octane offenses. A look at SDSU’s offensive statistical profile over the years portrays a team that plays a deliberate style without generating high-quality, schemed looks.

Too often, there’s a false equivalency drawn between slow offense and bad offense. That’s far from the case in my opinion, one only need to look as far as the NCAA and NBA champions in the 2023-24 season, the UConn Huskies and Boston Celtics. Both teams played a laborious style, but with intent. UConn’s meticulously schemed motion offense was incredibly efficient, creating clean looks for their bevy of shooters. Boston’s dominant run through this past season was defined by their relentless matchup hunting and isolation game. San Diego State, though, according to their own coach, is willing to play a much more laissez-faire approach to offense. On the Basketball Immersion Podcast, Dutcher discussed his philosophy on his offense in relation to his defense as “We spend a lot of time on defense. You’re good at what you work at…we might spend 50-60% of practice on defense…Offensively, we play with great freedom. We play with freedom within framework, we have things we try to accomplish but we like high IQ guys that can break out of that at any moment and just make plays.”

Although in many areas of the game flexibility is an admirable trait, in this instance, SDSU’s willingness to grant players freedom offensive autonomy has resulted in a consistently undesirable shot profile. Below is SDSU’s shot profile data under Brian Dutcher, with Near Proximity field goal attempts being defined as layups, dunks, and tip-ins.

Even with the offensive context being subpar, anyone who has read this far is probably looking for a better explanation for Miles Byrd’s offensive shortcomings than ‘the spacing and system were terrible.’ After all, this could be applied to a litany of former prospects. Despite a team’s structural issues, a player shouldn’t be entirely absolved of the product right? In Byrd’s case, though, despite the uninspiring raw efficiency, he finished in the 87th percentile in Offensive On-Off, per cbbanalytics. San Diego State was 8.9 points per 100 possessions better with Byrd on the court, due to his contribution in a few areas.

First, Miles Byrd is a stellar example of the importance of interior passing. Ranking in the 92nd percentile in Rim-Assists/40 minutes and the 96th percentile in the percent of total assists at the rim, on a per-touch basis Byrd was extremely efficient as a playmaker. Without running a high volume of PNR, Byrd routinely displayed a diverse passing vocabulary in the few opportunities he had attacking a tilted defense.

Even though I would consider Byrd’s handle a weakness at the moment, his penchant for playmaking manifested in his schemed possessions as well. The glut of actions drawn up for Byrd were ‘Spanoulis’ or ‘Zoom Chicago’, but he did operate and was effective in a limited sample as a PNR ballhandler, finishing in the 84th percentile in PNR PPP.

What Byrd’s projection on this end will be reduced to, though, will be how consistent a spacer he will become. Ending the season shooting only 30.3% from 3 on a robust 11.7 3PA/100, I am more optimistic Byrd will develop into an effective spacer than the raw numbers indicate. A significant portion of the optimism lies in Byrd’s stellar three-point volume and career 82.8% FT%, while also being rooted in the circumstances brought on by SDSU’s offense. On Guarded 3PA Byrd shot 37.2% (32/86), which was significantly better than the 23.1% (12/52) Byrd shot on Unguarded 3PA. My hypothesis as to how this could have been possible is that half of Byrd’s 3PA were classified as ‘Long Threes’ which per cbbdata are 3PA from 25+ feet. Already lacking in physical strength, oftentimes Byrd was placed in the position of HAVING to take long 3PA when his teammates were incapable of penetrating and breaking the defensive shell on the initial action.

What may be the strongest evidence for optimism in Byrd’s offensive profile is how extensive a creation burden he was tasked with. Over the course of researching relevant data for this piece, I’d realized Byrd’s self-created shot volume stood out amongst similarly sized players from previous drafts. This past season, only 22.9% of Miles Byrd’s two-point attempts were assisted and he produced 7.42 Unassisted 2PA per 100, a shot distribution more in line with guards trusted with generating half-court offense. To gauge how Byrd’s creation compared to similarly sized players, I conducted a (slightly overfitted) query…

….which yielded this list of 72 players since 2010

50th percentile EPM in the NBA this year (regular season) is -1.71 and slightly over half of this list’s 3 Year Peak EPM surpasses this number. Considering the draft capital (or lack thereof) spent on these players, a majority of them outperformed the expected value attributed to their draft slotting. Notably in the mix here are some of the most impressive recent ‘margin wins’ in Naji Marshall, Herb Jones, and Aaron Wiggins. And while there are some significant disappointments (like a Jarrett Culver or Johnny Davis), even some widely considered ‘busts’ such as Evan Turner managed to contribute in the league for a significant period of time. Two shared traits with players unable to stick in the league were:

1. Lacking a complementary offensive skillset (perimeter shooting, connective passing, and other play-finishing traits)
2. An inability to contribute defensively.

As previously outlined, I’m of the mind that San Diego State’s offensive ecosystem deprived Byrd of opportunities to display the former, and in the next section I plan on quelling concerns of the latter issue.

Tying it all together

For all the aforementioned reasons, Miles Byrd and VJ Edgecombe’s profiles are not without their flaws. There are probably plenty of issues with their skill sets that I haven’t mentioned that would make teams wary of drafting them. What these two have in common, and what has been particularly enamoring, is the seamlessness with which they fit into the modern game. Particularly defensively, Edgecombe and Byrd embody traits that I believe are necessary to play in today’s style.

After this season, Miles Byrd found himself in rare company with his defensive production. The list of non-bigs who managed to contribute to elite defense to the degree Byrd did, while maintaining a baseline level of feel, is exceedingly small.

Taking account of the right-most column, zone-heavy teams seem disproportionately represented amongst this group of players, making Byrd’s inclusion even more compelling. Per Synergy, San Diego State only logged 2 (!!) possessions of zone defense this entire season. Circling back to the initial concerns raised about SDSU’s defense and how relevant Byrd’s responsibilities within the scheme would be to what he’ll be asked to do at the next level, I believe SDSU’s scheme is one of the college defenses most analogous to the NBA systems currently in vogue.

Earlier, I had mentioned SDSU’s willingness to switch in conjunction with their tendency to show help early and often as a potential crutch for Miles Byrd, an obstacle in properly evaluating his defense. Originally, I’d thought if I were unable to assess Byrd’s ability to perform in ONE isolated defensive role, whether it be screen navigation, POA defense, or weakside rim-protection, then I’d be unable to determine which defensive role best suited him. The direction defenses in the NBA are heading, though, proves this is an antiquated way of evaluating defensive talent. In the same way competency in dribbling, passing, and shooting has become requisite for incoming NBA players, we have now arrived in an era where personnel need to demonstrate a degree of proficiency in each facet of defense to contribute to elite ’16 game’ basketball.

Of course, no team has exemplified this philosophy more than the prohibitive favorites for this year’s championship, the Oklahoma City Thunder. By compiling a roster full of players who are not only physically capable of executing a variety of defensive roles, but can simultaneously diagnose complex rotations, the Thunder have architected a defense with a singular identity amongst the NBA elite. Similar to San Diego State, the Thunder have no issues helping off of shooters, switching early and often, varying ballscreen coverages, and breaking with conventional defensive principles like helping off the ball-side corner.

While the other participant in this year’s NBA Finals doesn’t play as frenetic a defensive scheme, the Indiana Pacers mirror Oklahoma City in their utilization of early pick-up points in order to extend their pressure and convert a perceived weakness, their size, into a strength.

This kind of defense, which is becoming more and more commonplace, is where both Edgecombe and Byrd should thrive. Both have routinely shown their chops in each ‘phase’ of defense. Role notwithstanding, both were exemplary as point-of-attack defenders.

As previously discussed, SDSU’s scheme gave Byrd carte blanche to trust his instincts and range as a help defender, to consistently great results. Byrd’s activity was pervasive in every area, changing the geometry of the court by altering drive angles as a nail-defender…

…and keeping his team’s defense out of rotation with his sticky screen navigation.

Edgecombe’s deployment wasn’t nearly as fluid as Byrd’s, as Baylor played significantly more zone defense than SDSU (Baylor finished in the 91st percentile in zone frequency), making their defensive identity this season much more conservative. Coming into this season as the 234th-ranked team in average height per KenPom, Baylor didn’t have the luxury of rangy defenders to execute longer, more exotic rotations, so their prerogative was to stay out of rotation entirely and maintain shell integrity. This confined Edgecombe to playing a much more static role than Byrd. Even with a more parochial role, Edgecombe’s hand speed and lateral quickness mirroring players on the perimeter shone.

The instances of cognitive athleticism Byrd and Edgecombe show in the clips above are what make them especially suited for modern defenses. Oklahoma City has become the blueprint by acquiring players with traditionally valued athletic traits, decision making, and reaction times to dial their defensive aggression to the point where they are dictating terms of play to the offense. Recently, a major shift in NFL defenses was made when teams realized offenses struggled playing against 2-high safety alignments, where big-play opportunities were limited and offenses would have to slowly matriculate the ball down the field. I do not find the recent schematic changes made by the OKC Thunder all that different. The Thunder defense, by swarming to the ball and congesting driving lanes, have turned the long-held ‘drive and kick’ logic on its head. Similar to San Diego State, OKC concedes a high volume of 3PA defensively, especially relative to contemporary elite defenses. However, this is by design, by selling out on drives and forcing the ball to travel east-west versus north-south, both teams force longer possessions. In Oklahoma City’s case, the number of defensive playmakers they roster makes each drive by the opponent a tenuous proposition. When a team rosters so many chaos agents on defense, there’s the opportunity cost assumed with each successive drive, that the chance of the driver committing a turnover increases.

The emphasis on turnover generation in convergence with the break from traditional defensive philosophies resulted in NBA defense being ‘up’ this year, with drive volume, secondary assists (an assist made without the passer dribbling before the assist), and offensive rating all declining. While I understand this is a somewhat strained assumption, especially on such a small sample, I truly believe the sustained intensity and creativity we’re seeing in defenses is responsible for this phenomenon.

In SDSU’s case, Miles Byrd was disruptive enough on his own to mimic this effect on opposing offenses. By covering large swaths of ground and making multiple efforts after the initial rotation, Byrd was largely responsible for preventing flow to build within an offense.

By now I am probably starting to sound like a broken record with the continued use of terms like ‘ground-coverage’ and ‘event creation’, but it truly can’t be overstated how essential this is becoming as we transition into what has been aptly termed ‘The Weakest Link Era’ (a phrase coined by the inimitable Owen Phillips). So far, I’ve outlined the kind of player required to play this work-intensive style of defense, but the fact of the matter is that to play this way throughout the regular season and playoffs, you need MORE of this kind of player.

NBA basketball has never been more physically demanding, so it follows that to play a style hinged on range and effort, you’ll need a rotating cast of players to complement your core group. In Oklahoma City’s case, their depth is not only complementary, but ameliorates the weaknesses of many players in their rotation. So many members of the Thunder either currently possess or were at an earlier point designated as half-court deficient players; however, their greatest strength defensively allows them to play in the game states most conducive to efficient offense.

This applies to Miles Byrd and VJ Edgecombe because, irrespective of their offensive limitations, their penchant for creating turnovers will greatly augment the offense of a team, especially one already rostering players with similar defensive talents. The effect both Byrd and Edgecombe had on their respective teams’ transition numbers is instructive as to their value-add offensively.

In Byrd’s case, these transition numbers are especially notable: this is how a player shooting 38% from the field becomes the most impactful player to his team’s offense. San Diego State’s rim rate went from 122nd in the country with Byrd on the court to 293rd with him off. Without Byrd providing a spark in transition, the Aztecs were incapable of generating quality rim attempts in the half-court.

Conclusion

As it currently stands, the NBA is in a transitionary period. Slowly but surely, fans, analysts, and teams alike are acknowledging this era is a far departure from the star-centric league most of us grew to know and love. Now, as depth and flexibility become the focus, and while salary cap restrictions are more punitive than ever, it is paramount that teams get the most out of whatever draft capital they possess to maintain a standard of competitiveness. Otherwise, teams will routinely subject themselves to the whims of the ever-temperamental lottery gods (my condolences go out to fans of the Wizards, Jazz, and Pelicans alike). As I’ve mentioned repeatedly, Miles Byrd and VJ Edgecombe are far from perfect prospects, for as much as I’ve lauded their defensive acumen, even in this area their physical strength could become a significant obstacle which prevents them from being All-Defense caliber performers.

In Edgecombe’s case in particular, I would be surprised if he ended up returning top-4 value, and personally have him ranked 7th at the time of writing. I see VJ developing in a way where he could disappoint relative to expectations on his rookie contract. However, the style both players allow you to play, and the confidence I have in the depth they will provide, anchors my belief that both players have productive NBA careers ahead of them.

The post Contextualizing Production: VJ Edgecombe and Miles Byrd appeared first on Swish Theory.

This may sound like I’m being critical, but I’m not. Long-term star injuries for contenders are rightfully watershed moments in NBA thinking, especially regarding team building. How can you not? The same moment happened when Kevin Durant grabbed his leg in Toronto during the 2019 Finals. And given the cascading effect of that injury, we were right to speculate wildly.

Although the Celtics are unlikely to experience the catastrophic post-injury season that Golden State went through, many of the same assumptions apply. The team won’t be contending this upcoming season. Their immediate window is over. Tough questions will have to be asked of the roster. The question for me becomes, can the Boston Celtics use this tragic injury to their benefit in the long run?

Key Assumptions

Those reading this most likely fall under the umbrella of NBA sicko-dom. You follow Keith Smith, you’ve opened Spotrac to check on contracts, and you can list CBA rules off the top of your head. You know, normal people stuff. The average NBA fan has some idea of how the salary cap works, but the motivations of NBA front offices/ownership groups and the avenues to accomplish their goals may be more of a mystery. My first assumption is that most people who wear Celtics hats don’t understand the ramifications of the salary cap.

The worst-kept secret in the NBA is that everybody fears the consequences of the luxury tax. Even Warriors owner Joe Lacob, with a franchise seemingly doubling in value yearly and a line of minority investors in Patagonia quarter-zips around the block, feared the tax. The Boston Celtics hit their tax window perfectly, setting up a two-year run of having Jayson Tatum, Jaylen Brown, Jrue Holiday, Kristaps Porzingis, and Derrick White all paid their worth. That first season resulted in a championship. The second, as we know, was a tragedy. My second assumption is that no matter how these playoffs went, the bill was coming due, and a slash-and-burn salary dumping was coming this offseason.

But the dollar figure is secondary here. What matters most are the restrictions associated with salary cap overages. New ownership will want a clean slate upon which to build a new team instead of being beholden to the transactions of the old regime. This leads us to the number that will define Boston’s offseason.

$19,959,873

The second apron is the word you’ll hear a lot this offseason. That amount you see above is the projected dollar amount Boston needs to cut to get below that figure. The second apron is extremely restrictive for a team that will need to be nimble over the next few seasons.

First and foremost, it stops you from aggregating multiple outgoing salaries together in trades or taking in more money than you send out. As long as they’re above the apron, Boston cannot send out multiple players in a single trade, and their cap number can only decrease in any trade. This, by itself, is very limiting. On top of that, if you spend three out of five years in the second apron, your first-round pick automatically becomes the 30th overall pick. It also limits the future draft picks you can trade.

The goal of this new CBA was to promote parity around the league, spread the talent out, make dynasties harder to form over years, and engage every fan base. When you’re the Boston Celtics, having five players making $28+ million is like walking into a bear den with your pockets full of beef jerky.

Boston’s championship team was $5 million above the second apron, and this year’s team was $4.4 million over. Don’t just take this prediction from me: Wyc Grousbeck, the newly former Celtics owner, said it himself. Since the draft pick penalty rolls over five years, the Celtics would have their first-round picks moved to #30 in several upcoming seasons. They would need to duck the second apron for three consecutive seasons to avoid further penalties.

In short, if the Celtics don’t find a way to shed this money, they’ll be strung up by their ankles trying to improve this roster in the coming years. Jayson Tatum is 27 years old, Jaylen Brown is 28 years old, and the two project to have many great years of basketball ahead of them. This limitation on their roster-building capabilities would be tough to overcome. Now, let’s figure out how Boston can get under this.

One last number to consider here: 13. Boston has to enter the season with at least 13 players to meet the league minimum requirement. As things stand, they have 12 under contract for next year. So all moves will need to keep that target number in mind.

The Jrue Holiday Issue

Jrue is the first and foremost player in these conversations. This season was the first year of a four-year, $134 million extension Holiday signed after the championship run. They wanted to take care of him for the chance at back-to-back titles, but it has been clear he would be one of the first to go, especially as he declines going into his age-35 season.

This article isn’t about speculating who Boston can acquire; you’re all adults capable of working a trade machine. This is about the math needed for a route to cap relief. So here’s the breakdown on what Boston can do to whittle down that $20 million tax overage, starting with Jrue’s $32.4M salary.

Boston must take back at least 80% of Jrue’s salary in a two-team deal. Assuming they can find a deal to take back the minimum, whether one player or multiple, that would be $6.48M in savings. That’s roughly a third of the number needed. It gets even more interesting when you take three-team deals into account. The 80% rule doesn’t have to go all the way around. Boston can send Jrue to one team, then that team can send the 80% of Jrue’s salary to a third team, who can in turn send 80% of THAT salary back to Boston.

If GM Brad Stevens can make a three-team deal work at the minimum amount, Boston could take back a minimum of $20.74M. That would be $11.66M in total savings, more than half of the number needed. Assuming this gets done by acquiring two or more players, that would also put Boston at or above the 13 minimum required players. Now, we’re left with some flexibility and several ways to get the remaining $8.3M off the books.

Remaining Options

I will take a leap here and assume that neither Jayson Tatum nor Jaylen Brown will be dealt. That leaves a few avenues for the remaining money.

First, and most obviously, they can move on from Kristaps Porzingis and his expiring $30.7M salary. If Boston again takes back the minimum salary in a two-team deal, that’s $6.14M in savings. Expanding to a three-team deal, the Celtics could save up to $11M; only taking back $19.7M in the exchange. That could cover the tax amount needed, but something else comes into play: the upcoming draft. Boston owns the 28th and 32nd overall picks, and assuming they draft and keep players at both those slots, that salary would put them back into the apron.

There are avenues to overcome this. Neemias Queta, Xavier Tillman, and Jordan Walsh all have minimum-level deals that could be salary dumped into the cap room of another team, or traded for non-guaranteed contracts that Boston can then waive. But it would be tight and would cut into their 13-player roster minimum.

Another option would be Sam Hauser and his $10M salary. His contract is small enough to be traded into an exception or cap room for teams with cleaner salary sheets. That and some trades involving the minimum deals above would accomplish the task. This would be even tougher to navigate with the player minimums, however. Turning Hauser and one or more others into zero returning players would put extra pressure on a Jrue Holiday trade to include three or more players coming back.

I lean towards Porzingis being the solution here. His expiring deal and dip in play this year make him an obvious candidate. Hauser did have a down year, but he fits the system well and is on the books for four more years. Trading Hauser for other players wouldn’t accomplish much due to the tax problems. So, of the more obvious solutions after Jrue, Kristaps makes the most sense.

However, Porzingis and Hauser aren’t the only solutions to this.

The Nuclear Option

One assumption I’ve made up until this point is that Boston is making these moves with the intention of returning to the fray with the same core after Tatum is healthy. Their star wing pairing, plus Derrick White and Payton Pritchard, can all stay on the roster while they duck the second apron. That would almost certainly make them a playoff team in a weak East next year with Brown, White, Pritchard, and whatever they get back for the above trades.

But there are alternatives. What if Boston looks at Derrick White, about to turn 31 and begin a four-year, $118 million extension, as a potential negative asset by the time Tatum returns? After all, defense-first guards tend to fall off cliffs sooner than expected. Perhaps Boston thinks it can get out of the casino before going bust by trading White to a more immediate contender, getting a big haul of picks, and truly re-tooling.

Pritchard is another question. His four-year, $30 million extension is an absolute steal for the Sixth Man of the Year. His upcoming $6.7M salary wouldn’t solve the tax problems by itself, but that low salary would certainly up his price in a potential deal.

Perhaps Boston thinks it can trim the fat on declining or less essential players and try to run it back in 2026-27. An alternative would be to trade White, Pritchard, and Hauser in addition to Holiday for short-term deals and let Porzingis stick around. That would clear a whopping $83.8 million, and open up nearly $60 million in cap room for the season when Tatum returns.

It would be a whole lot of uncertainty. That level of teardown could rip apart the fabric of Boston’s culture. Even if the internal promises to Tatum/Brown indicate this isn’t a true rebuild, it’s hard to trust someone on their word if the results are poor. There is the risk that if you break things apart you may be unable to build them again. But it could potentially raise the ceiling of the team once Tatum is back in the fold.

Which Way, Butler Man?

If you’ve taken anything away from this, know that Boston will be saying some tough goodbyes this offseason. And that general manager Brad Stevens will have many ways to accomplish this.

The fans’ goodwill after this injury effectively buys you a season to do what is needed. The title expectations are on hiatus. Stevens could trim salary, retain the core, and acquire some flexibility. Or he can take significant steps to reload Boston’s draft picks and try to fill as many rotation spots as possible with draft picks, enabling them to take a chance on acquiring more star talent.

There are so many variables at play here. Does the core want to stay? Will Al Horford wish to come back to a team that won’t be able to contend next season? Can stud head coach Joe Mazzulla coach a 45-win team the same way he can coach a 60-win team? Is Boston willing to risk getting Milwaukee’d by seeing one of their outgoing players end up on a team they’ll have to face in coming years, as Jrue Holiday did with their team? Most variable of all, does Boston believe that Tatum can come back strong after such a devastating injury?

I’d be surprised if any team is more active in trade calls this offseason. It’s an unusual position for a high-profile team to be quasi-sellers with two All-Stars on the roster, but thems the breaks. When that Shams Charania notification about Boston trading a piece away hits your phone this summer, you’ll know why these deals are being done.

The post The Boston Celtics Rebuild Window 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.

1. Utah Jazz – Cooper Flagg, Duke

If you can believe it, I came away from my most recent Duke watch even higher on Cooper Flagg. “There is an easy case to be made for Flagg ending up a consistent top 5 player” is what I wrote in my Flagg scouting report from January, and that may have been an undersell. While he is not perfect – namely his rim efficiency drops against good teams – Flagg’s advancement as an on-ball creator and overall scorer throughout the season only increases his primary odds. He quickened his release in a more stable way, figured out how to hunt short midrange looks and pass succinctly out of those drives. Considering his wiring as a problem-solver with a second-to-none motor, layered on top of an excellent existing skillset at age 18, Flagg may have MVP upside if things click.

Matt Powers

2. Washington Wizards – Dylan Harper, Rutgers

Dylan Harper arrived on Rutgers campus this fall with much fanfare, with the expectations that himself and fellow 5-star recruit Ace Bailey would lead Rutgers to their first tournament appearance since 2022. While the team fell short of these lofty expectations, Harper turned in one of the more impressive floor-raising seasons of any freshman in recent memory. In spite of a flawed supporting cast, Harper was able to lead Rutgers to a top-40 offense while shouldering the lion’s share of playmaking and scoring responsibilities. Harper suffered an illness induced mid-season swoon, but still managed to finish 70% at the rim on substantial volume while avoiding turnovers on these drives. Harper’s turnover economy should also ease any concerns Wizard’s fans may have of Harper’s ability to scale next to other ballhandlers they may acquire in the future. While some consternation related to Harper’s shooting potential is valid, his ability to consistently shoot off the catch, dating back to his high-school days, serves as further evidence Harper can quickly acclimate to a more complimentary role offensively.

Ahmed Jama

3. Charlotte Hornets – Collin Murray-Boyles, South Carolina

At 6’8”, Collin-Murray Boyles is a premier defensive prospect who leverages his feel, hand-eye coordination, and strength on both sides of the court. With a 4.7 BLK% and 2.8 STL% for his college career, Murray Boyles’ ground coverage, length, and feel enable him to consistently force possessions to end, something that the Hornets greatly need. It isn’t just the event creation; he’s a fantastic defensive rebounder, where he posted a 21.3 DREB% over his two years at South Carolina.

On offense, Collin-Murray Boyles can act as a face-up scorer, roller, and elite playmaker as a passer, where he often makes layered reads on the short-roll and out of the post. His defensive value gives him a positive intersection of skills that would allow him to boost Charlotte’s transition offense (worst in the league in efficiency and 6th lowest in volume), acting as a passing outlet and downhill scorer off of steals, blocks, and defensive rebounds. With large creators that have shooting gravity like Lamelo Ball and Brandon Miller, Collin Murray Boyles’ shooting issues would be insulated to a degree, and he would get them better shots through effective screen assists and high-leverage passing. Having a player like Murray-Boyles operate in the short-roll and play out of DHOs would take the Hornets’ offense to another tier, especially since he would have gravity as a scorer both with his face-up game and downhill pressure.

Murray-Boyles is the best player available to me due to his tremendous defensive value, collegiate production for an underclassman, and high degree of feel relative to his age, but it’s his synergistic fit with the Hornets that will draw out the best of his strengths that makes me excited to draft him at this slot.

Roshan Potluri

4. New Orleans Pelicans – VJ Edgecombe, Baylor

VJ Edgecombe is an undeniable athlete with a steep development curve. Edgecombe is a blur in the open floor with a smooth jumper off the catch and a tenacious defensive mindset. His ability to create buckets off the bounce was on full display playing for the Bahamas Men’s International Team this past summer. While that creation equity did not translate directly to the college level, his growth as a ball handler and athletic upside gives plenty of reason for hope. He shouldn’t be asked to do too much too soon in New Orleans with the existing talent on the roster, and his defensive impact and open court ferocity should fit right in.

Tyler Wilson

5. Philadelphia Sixers – Noa Essengue, ULM

At pick 5, Noa Essengue would be a tremendous fit with the Philadelphia 76ers while taking the best prospect available. Essengue dominated the German BBL as a teenager for Ratiopharm Ulm, overwhelming teams on both sides of the floor with his size, length, and ground-coverage, enabling him to post a 61.8 TS%, 13.4 TOTAL REB%, 0.98 A/TO, above 2 BLK%, and 2 STL%. Even as the second youngest prospect in the 2025 NBA Draft, he was able to post a 17.9 PER in a competitive professional league. For the same reasons that he was productive in the BBL, he can provide value on his rookie deal on the 76ers while being an appealing upside bet for the team due to his intersection of measurables, coordination, feel, and touch. On offense, Noa Essengue is a legitimate threat in transition and can provide value as a vertical threat and off-the-catch driver. Even with his sinewy frame, he applies immense physicality downhill, which shows up on the stat sheet in his bonkers 72 FTR. Essengue’s 3-point shot is still a work in progress, but he’s always had touch, and there has been real growth over the years in his mechanics and energy transfer.

Essengue is also a very versatile defender, stifling opponents with his lateral agility and length at the POA, nail, and backline. The combination of production for age, defensive versatility, outlier tools (9’3.25 standing reach at 6’ 10), feel, and touch makes him an intriguing upside bet in the top five.

Roshan Potluri

6. Brooklyn Nets – Ace Bailey, Rutgers

In the midst of a team-building crossroads, Brooklyn goes for an upside star swing on forward Ace Bailey of Rutgers. The 6’10 Bailey has solid physical tools that he displays on both ends, but really pops offensively with his dazzling scoring ability, including a tantalizing pull-up shot-making package, particularly in the midrange, where he has the ability to rise and fire over the top of defenders with seeming ease. In isolation, Ace is, pardon the pun, an “ace” in the department, as he is relatively unbothered by defenders once he gets to his preferred spots, and is already very adept at attempting-and converting-shots that would be deemed extremely difficult by most. He is also a player who can get hot in a hurry, and when he is in a rhythm, is a tough cover for many defenders, nearly regardless of size. Defensively, Bailey competes and makes the most of his length to bother opposing players, and his effort shines through on that end pretty consistently. His defensive awareness off the ball could improve, but for the “offensive finisher” archetype, he is much more of a two-way player. Overall, as a prospect Bailey’s ceiling is very high. There is a lot of room for growth with his handle and passing to fully realize his complete creation potential, and his offensive awareness regarding what constitutes a good shot could use some extensive refining, but as it stands right now, Bailey will be able to make an immediate impact on a young Nets team that is trying to find its way.

Corban Ford

7. Toronto Raptors – Khaman Maluach, Duke

Masai tends to prefer length with developable ball skills in his draft prospects, and Maluach leaves nothing to be desired when it comes to measurables. Standing 7’2” with a 7’5” wingspan and 9’8” standing reach, Khaman can touch the rim without jumping. Maluach has Olympic experience with the South Sudan team, and is coming off a sensational freshman season on a dominant Duke team. Khaman brings a stabilizing presence down low with one of the highest floors in the draft as a rim-roller; no prospect was as efficient of a lob threat rim-finisher as Khaman. Maluach flashes shooting touch on tough shots when given opportunity and brings great defensive intensity, footwork, and hands on both side of the floor. This move could help build the front court of the future alongside Scottie Barnes with another defensive anchor and a rim roller option to toss lobs to in P&R.

Ryan Kaminski

8. San Antonio Spurs – Kon Knueppel, Duke

Kon Knueppel’s jumper is about as fundamentally gorgeous as they come. On a loaded Duke roster Kon thrived hunting his shot off ball, hitting over 40% of his threes on over 10 attempts per 100 possessions. Knueppel is not a bouncy athlete, but is tough as nails with a strong lower half that allows for more positional versatility than at first glance. San Antonio desperately needs shooting to surround the Fox/Wemby pick and roll, and Kon is far and away the best possible fit in this class. Playing off of that gravity should allow for Kon to make an immediate impact and allow for a longer time horizon in the development of his off the bounce creation.

Tyler Wilson

9. Houston Rockets – Jeremiah Fears, Oklahoma

There’s a strong chance Houston trades this pick in real life, but for the purposes of this mock draft, they’ll be happy to add a creator like Fears with potential to remedy many of their offensive issues. Fears’s unique blend of burst, handling skill and shooting touch makes him a genuine primary handler bet, something the Rockets desperately need. Houston has the defensive infrastructure to help minimize his weaknesses on that end.

Ben Pfeifer

10. Portland Trailblazers – Derik Queen, Maryland

Queen isn’t a perfectly snug fit in Portland, but the Blazers couldn’t pass on the clear best player available left on the board. Elite movement skills, handling and touch help Queen dominate as an advantage creator with the feel and mobility to project more passing and defensive growth. Adding another shaky outside shooter will present some challenges, but Queen’s star ceiling is worth tinkering around.

Ben Pfeifer

11. Dallas Mavericks – Kasparas Jakucionis, Illinois

After parting with their franchise centerpiece and losing star Kyrie Irving for nearly the entirety of next season, the Dallas Mavericks fill a desperate playmaking need with the selection of Kasparas Jakucionis out of Illinois. The broad-framed, 6’6 guard has great positional size to go along with superb floor-mapping skill, and he makes the most of these tools along with his impeccable footwork to dictate the game at his own pace, stymying defenders while creating opportunities for his teammates. As a scorer, Jakucionis is adept playing out of the pick and roll, getting to the lane and finishing with touch and craft. His frame comes into play here as well, as he is able to seek out contact and still convert, and he generates free throw attempts in bunches. As a shooter, his form is solid and looks sound overall, even if the three point shooting numbers stand to improve overall. Defensively, Jakucionis is proficient, especially with his physical tools, where his quick feet and prodding hands help him hold up on most assignments. He can be prone to blow-bys by quicker players, and the physicality he brings on the offensive end isn’t quite the same on the defensive side, but he is by no means a liability on that end. All in all, Kasparas Jakucionis’ playmaking, shooting upside, and overall potential is a great fit on a Dallas team that needs to balance immediate contributions alongside future promise.

Corban Ford

12. Chicago Bulls – Tre Johnson, Texas

The Chicago Bulls should consider drafting Tre Johnson with the 12th pick in the 2025 NBA Draft due to his elite scoring ability and potential to address their need for a dynamic offensive guard. At 6’6” with a 7’0” wingspan, Johnson, a Texas freshman, led the SEC in scoring with 19.9 points per game, showcasing his three-level scoring prowess, including 39.2% three-point shooting and crafty footwork reminiscent of Devin Booker. His ability to create shots off the dribble, in isolation 81% of his 97-rim attempts were unassisted and he shot 59% on those, and off screens makes him a potential go-to scorer for a Bulls team transitioning to a youth-focused rebuild after trading Zach LaVine and DeMar DeRozan. While his shot selection and defensive consistency need refinement, his size, high basketball IQ, and playmaking flashes (second on Texas in assists) suggest he can develop into a versatile two-way wing. With Nikola Vucevic’s future uncertain and a need for a franchise cornerstone, Johnson’s upside as a high-volume scorer makes him a strong fit at pick 12, especially in a draft with a perceived drop-off after the top four.

Larry Golden

13. Atlanta Hawks – Ryan Kalkbrenner, Creighton

The Atlanta Hawks are in desperate need of an interior presence, not only to shore up their rim-protection, but to provide Trae Young a release valve. The lack of interior size and a viable finisher has restricted Trae’s potency as a scorer and limited Atlanta’s offense. Ryan Kalkbrenner has been one of the most effective and prolific interior scorers in the collegiate ranks over the past few years, finishing just under 70% at the rim on over 1300 career attempts. Kalkbrenner’s offensive value isn’t limited to his presence around the rim, Kalkbrenner’s punishing screens have been the bedrock in many ways for Creighton’s motion-heavy offense. As much of a boon as Kalkbrenner’s offensive capabilities have been, there is perhaps no area where his impact is more acutely felt than the defensive end. Creighton’s personnel outside of Kalkbrenner consists of offensively slanted players, placing immense pressure on Kalkbrenner to not only alter shots around the rim but suppress opponent’s rim attempts entirely. This is an objective Kalkbrenner has carried out year in and year out during his tenure at Creighton. And while Kalkbrenner’s raw block numbers and block rate are particularly eye-popping for a rim-protector, in each of the past 3 seasons Creighton has allowed less shots at the rim on lower efficiency with Kalkbrenner on the court versus off-court. The clear pathways for Kalkbrenner to be a positive player on both ends of the court make him a clear cut top-20 player, with a skillset tailormade to help the Atlanta Hawks immediately.

Ahmed Jama

14. San Antonio Spurs – Jase Richardson, Michigan State

Jase Richardson is a double dip on shotmaking for San Antonio here in the late lottery. A French connection (Penda, Essengue) is intriguing here if available, but with the arrival of Fox, ascendance of Stephon Castle, and the organizational commitment to Jeremy Sochan there is no greater long term need for this team than shooting the basketball. Richardson posted a 55/41/84 shooting split while canning over 40% of his mid range jumpers. He’s a great shooter both on and off the ball, plays tough defense and has intriguing upside as a pick and roll ball handler. Richardson is a skeleton key for the Spurs’ backcourt, fitting seamlessly with just about any lineup construction newly minted head coach Mitch Johnson decides to throw out there.

Tyler Wilson

15. Oklahoma City Thunder – Carter Bryant, Arizona

Carter Bryant displayed an advanced application of tools, volume shooting, and baseline feel as a 19-year-old last season. At 6-foot-8 and 225 lbs with a 7-foot wingspan, he already has an NBA-ready frame and utilized it to produce a 5.8% block rate and 2.8% steal rate, showcasing legitimate point-of-attack utility and secondary rim protection. On the other end, he shot 37% from three on a massive 59 three-point rate, finished 71% of his rim attempts, and dunked 17 times, building out the perfect playfinishing profile. 69.5% on 59 free throws is a slightly worrying shooting indicator, but 88% on 58 free throws over a two-year EYBL sample suggests this is more of a sample size issue. While Bryant’s usage and self-creation rates suffered from scaling down at Arizona, both of those marks were much higher in EYBL, potentially hinting at some latent creation value. On an Oklahoma City Thunder team that emphasizes ball skills, that would be put to the test, but he fits perfectly within their defensive playmaking, rim protection from all positions, and volume shooting.

Maurya Kumpatla

16. Orlando Magic – Danny Wolf, Michigan

Have you seen this guy play basketball? Danny Wolf is a grab-and-go seven-foot offensive hub diming up defenses on fast breaks and pick and rolls. Wolf flashes exciting handles, natural point center vision, and incredible feel for the game, hitting highlight pull-up threes and tough finishing touch shots at the rim. Danny makes good reads as a primary decision maker reacting to defenses, averaging 1.01 PPP on “P&R including passes” that ranks in the 84th percentile of all college players.

Ryan Kaminski

17. Minnesota Timberwolves – Labaron Philon, Alabama

Philon was an easy pick for me here. I have him ranked a fair bit higher. I believe he has some untapped potential on offense, but generally he brings the type of quick decisionmaking that the Wolves need structurally to make their front-court work. He’s a nice connective piece with upside which makes him an easy pick here.

Joe Hulbert

18. Washington Wizards – Adou Thiero, Arkansas

Adou Thiero is a high volume, punishing driver with ridiculous transition scoring dominance, paired with long arms and elite run/jump athleticism. By all accounts, he is the most functional athlete in this draft class. Despite questionable shooting upside, Adou’s reaction time on defense is notable, and he should emerge as one of the league’s best defenders somewhat quickly. His strong applied physicality, defensive event maxxing, and reasonable 12% assist rate/1 A:TO indicate some semblance of latent feel, which is uncommon for wings of Adou’s athletic caliber. Washington zags from its contemporaneous strategy of targeting high-risk teenagers and takes a young junior that will set the tone for the Wizards’ revamped defense.

Avinash Chauhan

19. Brooklyn Nets – Asa Newell, Georgia

For a team currently bereft of high-end talent or foundational prospects, the Brooklyn Nets should prioritize acquiring young, malleable pieces who can accentuate the skillset of whatever star they eventually bring into the fold. Asa Newell brings a swiss army knife skillset to whatever frontcourt he joins. Newell made major strides this past season as a shooter, elevating his free-throw percentage by over 20 percentage points, and showing softer touch around the basket than he had at any point of his high-school tenure with a vaunted Montverde Academy. Newell finished 13th in the country in Offensive Box Plus-Minus, and was second amongst freshmen. Despite his subpar 3-point efficiency and playmaking numbers, Newell’s effectiveness as an interior scorer and offensive rebounder should ease his transition to the NBA and make him one of the more reliable bets in this range of the draft

Ahmed Jama

20. Miami Heat – Kam Jones, Marquette

This pick mostly leans into the type of thing Miami would do, which I don’t want to be seen entirely as a negative. Kam Jones drastically improved his playmaking this year, it was probably the biggest skill increase in the entire class. This increases his upside. I have concerns about the free throw rate, but Jones is the type of guard the Heat have targeted for the last decade, a slasher who knows how to play the game in the half-court.

Joe Hulbert

21. Utah Jazz – Noah Penda, Le Mans

Over the last two seasons, Noah Penda has hovered around 8% OREB, 16% assist, 4% block, and 3% steal, with 1.6 A:TO and 0.4 FTR. The only high major players to even hit career 7o/15a/3b/2.5s/1.5 a:to are Otto Porter Jr. and Draymond Green. Enough said. Penda is a large bodied driver with legit handling ability, and he’s made real strides as a shooter. He projects as a high feel, two-way connector with as good of a shot as any to land on a few All-Defense teams. Despite the usage of connector as a sort of euphemism, this sort of oreb/assist/stock wing with legit high end feel doesn’t come along every draft. This is exactly the sort of low friction, high EV mold that the Jazz should be looking to target in the middle of the first round.

Avinash Chauhan

22. Atlanta Hawks – Thomas Sorber, Georgetown

The Atlanta Hawks get a lottery-caliber big/forward at pick 22 with Thomas Sorber. While Thomas Sorber played more as a center for Georgetown his freshman season, he’s got the processing, touch, coordination, and mobility to scale down as a forward. He has his limitations as a ground-bound player, impacting his rim finishing and causing him to become more creative in finding finishing angles. However, his fundamentals and his ability to carve space with his body are quite advanced for a freshman, which enabled him to finish 65% of his non-dunk rim attempts despite the vertical challenges for his size. He does this by using his body to create highway screens or to seal and get into post position (70% PPP percentile in post-ups). Although he shot a paltry 16.2% on threes, I have confidence he can become a catch-and-shoot threat on his rookie scale deal due to his comfort with jumpers inside the arc, 72.4% from the FT line, and his lack of hesitancy to take open threes. Sorber is also a fantastic defender who can protect the rim to a high degree (opposing team’s rim FG% falls by 14% with Sorber on the floor and 7.6 BLK%) while also being able to switch in space (2.7 STL%).

For these reasons, Sorber is optimized more as a forward. Playing as a forward and his fit with the Hawks as a short-roll passer, positive rebounder, defender, and play finisher gives me optimism that Sorber would be a tremendous match for the Hawks.

Roshan Potluri

23. Indiana Pacers – Nique Clifford, Colorado State

The Pacers can always use more quality wing play and Clifford brings that. He’s improved his offensive skillset over the years, diversifying his attack and adding new skills to his box of tools. He’ll add much needed size and defensive prowess to Indiana’s perimeter defense as well.

Ben Pfeifer

24. Oklahoma City Thunder – Miles Byrd, San Diego State

The Thunder net their second wing of the draft in Miles Byrd, who stands at 6-foot-6 with a 7-foot wingspan. Byrd was one of the best wing defenders in college basketball last season, applying his length to produce a 4.9% block rate and 4.3% steal rate while grading out as the best defender on a top-20 defense. Alongside his high steal rate, his high feel is evidenced by an 18.5% assist rate and 1.7 assist-to-turnover ratio, rounding him out as a quintessential “Presti-player”. While his shot hasn’t come around yet (30% 3PT), high volume (12 attempts per 100 possessions and 57 three-point rate), great touch (83% FT), and impressive midrange shotmaking (38% on non-rim 2s) at a true sophomore age promise three-point shooting down the line. The main issue lies in his closeout attacking, where his handle easily clears the threshold but terrible finishing (55%) crushes any potential there and limits his overall offensive ceiling.

Maurya Kumpatla

25. Orlando Magic – Tahaad Pettiford, Auburn

Tahaad Pettiford brings downhill explosiveness, quick first step burst, soft finishing touch, pull-up 3pt shooting range, and two-way feel to a team that needs it. A guard that can penetrate the paint, attack the rim, kick out to shooters, score and shoot the rock who can hold his own defensively would see a warm welcome in Orlando. He’ll have opportunity to develop as Orlando continues building a perennial playoff contender, where maybe the Magic won’t need to make a splashy trade if they can nail the right complementary guard to their core in the draft.

Ryan Kaminski

26. Brooklyn Nets – Ben Saraf, ULM

Saraf is a downhill menace at 6’5” who can apply both rim pressure (6.3 rim attempts per 36 minutes) and midrange pressure (3.8 pull-up twos per 36 minutes) while being one of the best distributors in class. Saraf looks like an ideal back up point guard in waiting, with outside shooting concerns holding back his starer likelihood. But productivity across the court – his 4% offensive rebound rate, 2.7% steal rate and 1.3% block rate are all strong for a guard – signal he knows how to play. A proven contributor at only recently turned 19 for the second-place team in the highly competitive German league.

Matt Powers

27. Brooklyn Nets – Bogoljub Markovic, KK Mega

Another up-and-coming bet from the European leagues, Markovic can stretch the floor to complement Saraf’s probing. At 6’11” with a pristine shooting form, Markovic cashed 40% of his catch and shoot three point attempts. That’s bankable at the next level, especially for a Brooklyn Nets team that was in the 97th percentile for catch and shoot frequency. Markovic has questionable ball skills, a good passer but poor decisionmaker at this current stage. But it is encouraging how open he is to trying things: while the creation outcome is unlikely, we cannot rule it out. His primary defensive contribution will be rebounding, at a 22% rate this season, and general effort, hampered by a mere +1 wingspan. The Nets have time to let young players experiment, and Markovic has as interesting of a foundation as anyone left on the board.

Matt Powers

28. Boston Celtics – Nate Bittle, Oregon

Nate Bittle is 7 feet tall with a reported 7’5 WS, he can shoot threes, and he was named to the Big Ten’s All-Defense team. 7 footers who make assists more than turnovers with non-terrible steal rates are rare enough, but I’ll save you the querying: there has never been a single 7-foot prospect who rebounds, blocks, avoids turnovers, and shoots the way Bittle does. The league is built on outliers!

Sure, this phrase is often weaponized as copium for some iteration of a highly unaesthetic, high-friction archetype that hemorrhages points through either 3 or D. But in this case, a 7 footer with these extreme strengths projects to be an incredibly low-friction bet that should be able to contribute regardless of context. It seriously doesn’t take much imagination to project Bittle’s offensive viability, especially on a team like the Celtics who have personnel (two of the league’s best 7 foot+ shooters in Luke Kornet and Kristaps Porzingis) and schematic precedent to maximize Bittle’s goodness.

Avinash Chauhan

29. Phoenix Suns – Darrion Williams, Texas Tech

Phoenix desperately needs good basketball players in any form and Darrion Williams fits that description. Williams presents one of the better dribble-pass-shoot bets on the wing in this class, bringing the on-and-off-ball versatility Phoenix would covet. He’s a sturdy defender as well who would likely be one of the Suns’ better players as a rookie.

Ben Pfeifer

30. Los Angeles Clippers – Alex Condon, Florida

The Los Angeles Clippers should consider drafting Alex Condon in the 2025 NBA Draft due to his versatile skillset and fit with their roster needs. At 6’11”, Condon offers the flexibility to play both power forward and center, addressing the team’s lack of frontcourt depth beyond Ivica Zubac. His modern big-man skills— including low-post scoring, developing three-point shooting, and exceptional playmaking with a 2.2 assist-to-turnover ratio—complement the Clippers’ need for a dynamic, facilitating big who can operate in dribble handoffs and keep the offense flowing alongside stars like James Harden and Norman Powell. Defensively, his lateral quickness and rim protection potential make him a solid fit for switching schemes, while his high basketball IQ and work ethic suggest he can develop into a reliable rotation player. With the Clippers aiming to bolster their frontcourt for a championship push, Condon’s two-way upside makes him a compelling mid-to-late first-round target.

Larry Golden

31. Minnesota Timberwolves – Sion James, Duke

Joe Hulbert

32. Boston Celtics – Liam McNeeley, Connecticut

Larry Golden

33. Charlotte Hornets – Javon Small, West Virginia

Ahmed Jama

34. Charlotte Hornets – Walter Clayton Jr., Florida

Ahmed Jama

35. Philadelphia Sixers – Hugo Gonzalez, Real Madrid

Tyler Wilson

36. Brooklyn Nets – Johni Broome, Auburn

Matt Powers

37. Detroit Pistons – Isaiah Evans, Duke

Roshan Potluri

38. San Antonio Spurs – Yaxel Lendeborg, UAB

Maurya Kumpatla

39. Toronto Raptors – Nolan Traore, Saint-Quentin

Ryan Kaminski

40. Washington Wizards – Rasheer Fleming, Saint Joseph’s

Joe Hulbert

41. Golden State Warriors – Rocco Zikarsky, Brisbane

Tyler Wilson

42. Sacramento Kings – Boogie Fland, Arkansas

Larry Golden

43. Utah Jazz – Drake Powell, North Carolina

Corban Ford

44. Oklahoma City Thunder – Max Shulga, VCU

Roshan Potluri

45. Chicago Bulls – Will Riley, Illinois

Avinash Chauhan

46. Orlando Magic – Vladislav Goldin, Michigan

Ryan Kaminski

47. Milwaukee Bucks – Koby Brea, Kentucky

Larry Golden

48. Memphis Grizzlies – Egor Demin, BYU

Matt Powers

49. Cleveland Cavaliers – Cedric Coward, Washington State

Maurya Kumpatla

50. New York Knicks – Mark Sears, Alabama

Tyler Wilson

51. Los Angeles Clippers – Tyrese Proctor, Duke

Corban Ford

52. Phoenix Suns – Eric Dixon, Villanova

Avinash Chauhan

53. Utah Jazz – Alex Toohey, Sydney

Larry Golden

54. Indiana Pacers – Jamir Watkins, Florida State

Ben Pfeifer

55. Los Angeles Lakers – Joan Beringer, Olimpija

Roshan Potluri

56. Memphis Grizzlies – Karter Knox, Arkansas

Matt Powers

57. Orlando Magic – Otega Oweh, Kentucky

Ryan Kaminski

58. Cleveland Cavaliers – Hunter Sallis, Wake Forest

Corban Ford

59. Houston Rockets – AK Okereke, Cornell

Maurya Kumpatla

The post 2025 NBA Mock Draft 3.0 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.

It must also be said that these teams have just the right amount of neanderthal DNA to, sure, probably get curb-stomped by OKC in round 2, but to put on a show in the meantime. Through two games, WTF moments in the clutch and jagged edges — like Jokić’s defense and Dunn’s offense…Ben Simmons — have not subtracted intrigue, but added character. With a 1-1 split heading into Thursday’s game 3, each team has lost the game they played better in. These teams are weird! Anyway, let’s get to it.

Denver’s incomplete defense on Kawhi

Let’s start with the big stuff. Kawhi Leonard dropped 39 points in Game 2 after a poor Game 1, and the Denver Nuggets didn’t really adjust how they defended him when he got it going. Though he melted their face off with absurd shot-making, I’ve actually liked Denver’s overall philosophy vs. Kawhi. He got going early in Game 2 by feasting on cross-matches in semi-transition, but the Nuggets didn’t panic because they’ve been conceding switches and loading help toward him anyway.

That’s a fine plan, and they’ve been able to execute it without allowing Kawhi to create easy shots for his teammates, though Kawhi shoulders a chunk of the credit/blame there too. He has not made quick decisions with the ball in his hands.

But that didn’t save Denver in Game 2 because they didn’t finish possessions against Kawhi, hence the “incomplete” tag. The man is inhuman, and has proven that, with healthy legs, he can win series by performing how he did in Game 2, where he shot 15-of-19 from the floor. So Denver has to finish possessions, there is no point in showing help against him if it is indeed just for show (sound on):

Denver shouldn’t fear the possibility of Kawhi putting on a passing clinic by throwing cross-court lasers and manipulating defenders with his eyes. Over his 13 NBA seasons, that’s never been his M.O., and it still isn’t. That’s why LAC stays away from pick-and-roll led by Kawhi, given a near-turnover like this…

Just as important, the Clippers are always playing a poor 3-point shooter. Every single one of Kawhi’s minutes through two games have seen Kris Dunn, Derrick Jones Jr., or Ben Simmons on the floor with him, and occasionally two of those guys. Furthermore, any strategy geared toward forcing turnovers and speeding up the Clippers plays to Denver’s advantage.

They recorded the 7th-fastest pace in the NBA this year (PBP Stats) and had, by miles, the lowest 3PA rate. That’s a formula that limits randomness/shooting variance; playing at a slow pace and allowing Kawhi to get up 16 jumpers is not.

The idea of attacking Kawhi is frightening in any context, but in Game 3, Denver just might have to. They’ve thrown a lot his way thus far, but the kitchen sink remains in their back-pocket.

Limiting LAC’s two-man game

Let’s keep it on this end of the floor, where the Harden/Zubac pick-and-roll feasted in Game 1. Harden, looking quite spry, looked to get all the way to the basket, and in the first half, Nikola Jokić often did little more than escort him there…

Since then, Denver has played Jokić much higher up the floor, if not outright trapping or hedging ball-screens. (An awesome, very minor subplot of this series is Harden finding every angle possible to hit Zubac on the roll while Jokić tries to deflect those passes, just about the best hand-eye coordination battle you’ll find.)

The major subplot is what happens once Zu catches the ball, and it feels like both teams have left something on the table here. Zubac can make rudimentary reads quickly enough, and has gotten Kris Dunn a few layups off baseline cuts. However, they’re nobody’s idea of Draymond Green and Gary Payton II. Dunn has struggled to finish under any defensive pressure, and if they can take away his cut, Zubac has struggled to snap to the next read, a kick-out for three. In fact, his best offense has been simply going to work against whoever steps up to meet him.

Harden is key here, too. The more downhill pressure he applies, the deeper Zu’s catch inevitably is, and these two can play pitch-and-catch as well as any tandem…

After that play in Game 2, Jokić played even higher up the floor, and Denver produced the desired effect: Harden largely stopped trying to get downhill, whether by splitting a screen or by attacking Jokic’s outside hip. Can he dial up the pressure in Game 3 if Denver opens in the same coverage?

How much room do Harden, Zubac, and Dunn have to improve from game 2? To me, it’s a reasonable chunk. If Denver feels the same way, they should try to deny Zubac on the roll altogether. In this first play. Michael Porter Jr. helps off of Dunn to deny Zu, and Norm Powell promptly turns the ball over. In the second play, MPJ doesn’t leave DJJ, Zu catches it, and it leads to a wide-open three:

Yes, DJJ is on the strong-side in play #2, but perhaps gambling off him is worth preventing any sort of deep catch for Zubac.

The Harden/Zubac two-man game that so much of LAC’s offense is built around is in a fascinating spot entering Game 3. Each team has reason to adjust; for the Clips it could be setting the screen higher up the floor or making sure a 3-point threat is weak-side corner. Still, “play better” could simply be the adjustment.

If Denver believes the Clippers will indeed play better, they could get funky and put Aaron Gordon on Zubac, Jokić on Dunn, and switch screens. They’ve tried that on a single possessions so far, and it didn’t end well…

They could send more early help to take away Zu’s roll, but they might just feel confident where they’re at. We’ll soon see.

Will Jokić start launching?

As for that infamous two-man game on the other side, the Clippers have done fairly well defending Jamal Murray and Nikola Jokić so far. Kris Dunn deserves the lion’s share of the credit, as he’s been responsible for chasing Murray into tight, mid-range spaces, but then switching back out onto Jokić when he pops, otherwise known as a veer-switch. It looks something like this:

Jokić hands him three points, but this is the coverage the Clippers opened with in Game 1, and, 101 minutes of hoop later, they’re still leaning on it. Though Jokić shot 4-of-8 from deep in Game 2, it felt like he ignored five or six clean looks, many coming on pick-and-pops like this.

There are other ways for the Nuggets to counter this defense from the Clippers. Jokić simply rolling to the basket and posting Dunn or Derrick Jones Jr. has led to some favorable isolations for him. It also leads to confusion for Dunn and Zubac, when/if they actually commit to the late switch.

But the nuclear code Jokić could push at any time is something he’s always reluctant to do, and that’s to just let it fly. This coverage seems like a bet from the Clippers that, even if goaded into it, Jokić will not launch 12-15 threes in a game, even if he’s shooting just under 42% from deep, like he did in the regular season.

Late in Game 1, the Clippers went another route, pressuring Jamal Murray while meeting Jokić early on his catches. Nekias Duncan did a great job explaining how the Nuggets roasted that coverage; essentially, the Clips were spread too thin, unable to prevent open looks for capable if not elite shooters, and even less able to grab rebounds…

Have the Clippers already found their favorite answer to the Murray/Jokić love affair? Perhaps. The more juice you can squeeze out of Kris Dunn’s defense, the better. But this strategy also keeps them in their shell, keeps Zubac near the rim, and limits the opportunities for James Harden and Norm Powell to get caught ball-watching as cutters sneak behind them.

The real danger is that Jokić melts the Intuit Dome with a 3-point barrage on Thursday night. Does he want to?

Where’s the other two-man game?

Let’s end with a couple quick bites. In Game 1, the Nuggets targeted James Harden on defense by consistently involving Aaron Gordon with Nikola Jokić, either in off-ball screens or inverted pick-and-roll. Perhaps it’s Gordon’s limp calf, but rookie head coach David Adelman went to those actions far less in Game 2.

Why? Perhaps because Harden is the Clippers’ worst defender.

Let me explain: Per Cleaning the Glass, the Nuggets turned it over on a whopping 21.7% of their possessions on Monday, their second-worst mark of the season. Jokić had a rough game with seven of them, and frequently, it was Dunn, Nic Batum, or Kawhi jumping his passing lanes. In other words, the further L.A.’s best defenders were from the ball, the more havoc they wreaked.

The same could not be said of Harden and Powell, who did not provide much help in rotation:

So, with Harden on Gordon, is that why we didn’t see much of Denver’s front-court chemistry in Game 2, or was it an injury? Either way, the Nuggets have to get back to that two-man game, and find Gordon some easy rolls to the rim. The team that shot the highest percentage in the league on shots at the rim (Cleaning the Glass) is shooting just 57% at the rim through two games, which would have ranked as the worst mark in the NBA by light years.

I may know an all-time dunker that can help with that.

Please, Norm

The Clippers will not win this series if Norm Powell and Bogdan Bogdanović continue to struggle so mightily. However, Powell not only hit some huge shots late in the second half on Monday, but was the recipient of an (unscripted) play that stuck in my mind…

It was a rare instance of Norm directly benefiting from the attention his co-stars get, rather than simply trying to emulate them by creating from a stand-still. Even if Jokić isn’t in much drop coverage, the concept still works, getting Norm the ball on the second side with the defense ever-so-slightly out of whack.

There are many more wrinkles to this matchup we could discuss. (Please go look up Kris Dunn’s defensive highlights from this series.) Tyronn Lue has not remotely settled on a substitution pattern, and in Game 2 Ben Simmons was the game’s first sub. Harden also played a chunk of minutes without Kawhi or Zubac, which felt off at the time. The Nuggets are battling injury and fatigue across the board, and seem unsure whether to devote much energy to getting Michael Porter Jr. going.

No matter which of these storylines takes center stage in Game 3 and beyond, we do know that this series has been, and will continue to be awesome.

Prediction: Clippers in 6

The post Round One: Nuggets vs. Clippers appeared first on Swish Theory.

Those Rocket squads were potent, and they got close. Closer than anyone else got to beating a healthy KD-Steph Warriors team. But the results are the results, and Steph and Co. effectively broke the team up. Much has changed for both squads since then. But as the adage goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Six years later, we are back.

Now, Steph, Draymond Green, and Kevon Looney are the only holdouts from those 2010s slugfests. It’s a brand new matchup with brand new intrigue. I dug into the film of the past two matchups (post-Jimmy Butler acquisition) to explore the game plans from a Warriors and Rockets perspective. I’ll take my best stab at guessing what can tilt this matchup and what tactics we might see.

Sengun Matchups

There are a lot of interesting matchup questions concerning Alperen Sengun. Houston’s 22-year-old offensive focal point poses interesting questions for these small-ball Warriors on both ends. How Golden State covers and contains him on offense is one of the foremost questions here. One of their main tactics so far has been doubling him off the ball early or sending immediate help on his lethal post spin move.

Forcing Houston’s less capable offensive players to beat them off the double teams is key. The Warriors are comfortable in rotation, and timely, effective doubles will go a long way towards kneecapping their halfcourt offense.

What interests me more is how Rockets coach Ime Udoka deploys Sengun on defense. In their small-ball alignments, Draymond Green is the de facto center. But given how often he runs action with Steph Curry, Houston tries to hide him on less frequent screen partners. That has produced varying results, most often bad for Houston’s defense.

The Gary Payton II matchup was a pressure point for Golden State in the last matchup. He’s an effective screener and roller in addition to the corner shooting. If Sengun is stationed on GP2, expect a ton of ball screens called for by Steph or Jimmy Butler. When running the double big lineup with Steven Adams, Sengun was more often positioned on shooters, and his poor closeout speed creates open shots off the drive. Who Sengun covers and whether or not Golden State can take advantage is a major swing point in the series.

Small-Ball Rebounding

This is another huuuuge swing point. The Rockets had a 96th percentile offensive rebounding rate, and it gets even wilder when they run Steven Adams-Alperen Sengun lineups. Per Cleaning the Glass, lineups with those two rebounded 50.3% of their misses while allowing a paltry 17% offensive rebounding rate. Both marks are #1 for any two-man lineup combination. Go back to any of these games, and you can see instances of Rockets big men bullying the small-ball Dubs on the glass.

Lineup-wise, it’s going to be a big Kevon Looney series. One of the best defensive rebounders in the league, he will have to go crazy on the glass when in the game. The Loondog played 37 total minutes in the last two matchups and gobbled up 20 total rebounds. They’ll need that kind of performance to survive. On top of that, they’ll need rebounding effort from the small-ball units. Draymond needs to box out hard, Jimmy needs to pitch in all over the glass, and the perimeter guys need to crash hard. It limits their transition chances, but Golden State cannot afford to give Houston second and third chances regularly. It’s a sacrifice they have to make.

Golden State managed to win the offensive rebounding battle in the last contest, but lost it considerably in the first. In both instances, they lost the putback points per possession by a wide margin. Considering Houston’s putrid halfcourt offensive ratings of 68 and 82.1 points per 100 in the two matchups, more chances are their best shot to keep in the race.

Steph-Jimmy Off Ball Screens

This was perhaps the most dangerous action Golden State ran against Houston. It worked like a charm for Jimmy as Houston sold out to contain Steph’s off-ball production. Split action, wide pindown, it all works to get Jimmy downhill for rim looks and free throws.

The fouls Jimmy draws, and who he draws them on, will be a major swing factor in the series. These off-ball actions will create a lot of free throw attempts and put Houston players in foul trouble if run correctly. Keep an eye on Golden State running these actions when the halfcourt offense dries up and they require momentum.

Attacking Jalen Green

Perhaps no tactic stood out to me more in the last matchup. Whenever Jalen Green was on the floor, Golden State ran off-ball actions on his man, forcing him to move and communicate. Or they just attacked him outright on the ball. It was their most consistent source of offense in the April 6th game and kept them in it on a night where Steph Curry didn’t have it.

Houston can’t afford to limit Jalen’s minutes. He’s crucial to their offense as one of two players who can consistently self-create in the halfcourt. That means tons of opportunities to test his mettle on the other end. In just about any lineup Houston deploys, he will be the worst defender on the court, and coach Steve Kerr will surely beat off-ball actions on Jalen to death.

Fred VanVleet PNR

Take a breath, Warriors fans. I know seeing that name is traumatizing.

Luckily, this isn’t the FVV of old. The dad strength is gone, and this season was the worst offensive performance for the 31-year-old since his rookie year. He posted a career-low in usage rate while his points per 100 shot attempts and assist rates were the lowest since that rookie year. But he still plays an important role in this offense due to his pick-and-roll usage.

Per Synergy sports, FVV was a 97th percentile pick-and-roll usage player with 50th percentile efficiency. Middling efficiency isn’t a concern on most teams, but on a Houston team that is feeble in the halfcourt, anyone with high usage and average results is a point of concern. A lot of icing is the answer, forcing the ball out of his hands to trap the roller or force kickouts to less capable players.

Golden State has the athletes and the discipline to properly ice him out. The question becomes, can the Rockets’ role players make the Warriors pay for the aggressive coverage? Or will they stonewall the pick-and-roll enough to keep this halfcourt offense in the dumps?

Rockets Transition

Nothing better exemplifies the gap in athleticism between these teams than the transition game. When these Rockets get out and running, this aged and slow Warriors team has little chance to stop them.

I think Golden State did an okay job containing the Rockets in transition off of rebounds, especially when Draymond was out there. Off of turnovers, they had no chance, and it swung the result in the two matchups. The Warriors only turned it over 11 times in the first matchup and won. They coughed it up 20 times in the second matchup and lost. All of those above baskets came in transition. If they’re giving the ball away more than 15 times per game, Houston’s athletes will get out and run, and Golden State will be in huge trouble.

Dillon Brooks Offense

Rightfully so, Golden State fans point to Dillon Brooks’ 24-point performance in the last game as an outlier. His 10-of-13 shooting night is not likely to be repeated. What interests me is that Houston made it a point of emphasis to get him involved in that game and was rewarded for it.

When he was guarded by Steph and Buddy Hield, they had Dillon go after him early and often. Golden State is content to put their defensive weak links on him for two reasons. One, he is rarely involved in screening actions. Two, the guy just can’t dribble. And when he does make shots, he immediately heat checks like he’s prime Steph. For better or worse, the Warriors will live and die by letting Dillon take his shots. It bears watching if Houston will try to get him going early in these games.

Jimmy Butler Drives

Other than Steph running in circles, this is Golden State’s best source of offense. They’ll need a tough-nosed driver to get the defense in motion or create points in isolation. Playoff Jimmy is extremely capable of creating off the drive regardless of who is defending him.

On top of the shots it generates for himself and others, it’s going to draw a ton of fouls. Getting switches on their best offensive players like Jalen or FVV creates issues, or getting into the body of Sengun. He’s also unafraid of Dillon, Tari Eason, and Amen Thompson. Any fouls he can draw on their stalwart defensive options can go a long way in this series. Expect the Warriors to live and die by Playoff Jimmy’s offense.

The Amen Problem

I think of all the Rockets players, nobody creates more all-around issues than Amen Thompson. His exceptional defense, transition offense, and half-court versatility all pose issues. Those were on display in the last matchup as he was arguably their best player.

They’ll need to limit his transition chances, work hard to get him off Steph, and send bodies in the halfcourt when he gets downhill. Force him to pass, or he will dunk it on your head. Thompson’s level of impact on this series has the most swing potential of any player to me, and he will be a point of focus for both coaching staffs.

Jonathan Kuminga?

Stop me if you’ve heard this before: Warriors fans online are being irrational about a young player. Kuminga was benched outright for the last two games. With playoff stakes, coach Steve Kerr opted to make the fourth-year forward ride the pine. Luckily for Kuminga, this Rockets matchup may be how he gets back on the court. His athleticism is sorely needed, and he presents an interesting screening/ballhandling option against an offense that usually sits in deep drop or blitzes hard.

I’d expect Kerr to give Kuminga some run and see if he can impact the offense. Given Houston’s offensive issues, his lack of awareness off the ball becomes less of a problem. If he can contain ballhandlers and rebound well in addition to offensive utility, perhaps he can swing things in Golden State’s favor.

Odds and Ends

I could go on and on about the swing factors and tactics in this series. Will Quinten Post play minutes to space the floor and affect the glass? Will the Rockets’ defenders, namely Dillon Brooks, be allowed to grab and hit Steph with impunity like the last matchup? Can Tari Eason make an offensive impact while being wide open? What kind of impact can Moses Moody make on both ends? Will Ime Udoka once again be extremely annoying?

This is going to be a real race to 100 kind of series. Both teams have elite half-court defenses and major offensive questions. For me, the difference is the high-end star power and playoff scoring experience on Golden State’s side. Steph Curry and Jimmy Butler know how to get things done in this kind of environment. Memphis just found that out the hard way.

Houston will have to limit those two in addition to crushing the Dubs on the glass and in transition to pull this one out. The Warriors can afford to slightly lose those battles if the halfcourt defense holds up and one or both of Jimmy and Steph can get going on a given night. I think this ends with yet another Golden State victory over Houston and a severe dose of psychic trauma inflicted on Rockets fans yet again. Get ready for the slug fest.

The post Warriors vs. Rockets: Key Matchups and Tactics appeared first on Swish Theory.

You never know which version of this Orlando Magic team you’re going to get. Sporadic 3pt shooting. Roster-depleting injuries. Rotations lacking rhythm. But there’s two things you can always count on for this group:

1. Opponents scratching and clawing for every point against this pestering defense
2. When Paolo and Franz get going, this team can hang around with anyone.

Orlando’s defense is as impressive as any team in the league; this year the Magic are on track for their second straight season as the league’s 2nd-best rated defense. The one thing you never question is The Competitive fire. The Energy. The Hustle. (get well soon, Suggs.)

The offense, though, lives and dies with the consistency of its stars, not to mention the shooting luck of its role players. The difference between stars and superstars in this league is a little bit of super and a lot of consistency. Orlando’s two shooting star rising suns still have to find that consistency to make the last jump into the superstar galaxy.

This season, both players made leaps closer to that goal, becoming franchise cornerstones any time would build around. When you play the Magic, sometimes you get Boogie; sometimes you get The Beast.

How many NBA teams run their offense through a pair of 6’10” point-forwards? Two big wing scoring creators here to bend driving angles, hit tough shots, and create good looks for the team.

Often penetrating the paint with postups and pick-and-rolls, what are the odds these two big wings average the same 4.7 Assists Per Game with exactly 223 Drives a piece over the course of the season for the same team?

On most nights, The Magic’s offense relies on its star scorers accomplishing 3 main goals: Getting to the line, Scoring at the rack, and Creating open looks for others. Franz looks to methodically run P&R and DHOs, using the screener to create that half-step advantage into the paint with hostage dribbles and shifty direction-changing drives until he gets to the rim for his patented running flip shot, his dirk fade counter, or the lob to the roll man.

Paolo makes scoring look effortless, bringing the ball up the floor and deciding between a quick pull-up jumper, backing down his defender from the perimeter with brute strength, or simply driving through every defender in front of him for a Power Slam.

I asked Orlando Magic Head Coach Jamahl Mosley about the challenges that go into playcalling with players as talented and versatile as Paolo and Franz, where it feels like any play could work on any possession depending on matchups and lineups:

“I think a lot of it always boils down to their feel, their read, their recognition to who’s on the floor with them, and the spacing placed around them.” – Jamahl Mosley

Sometimes the role players’ 3pt shooting shows up, like in Cleveland in a National TV spot, and on those rare nights where this team has the “we can make 15 threes” factor in play, they look like they can compete with any team in the league. Other nights, they have trouble hanging with the bottom of the barrel, because when the shots don’t fall, the paint is packed, and every possession becomes a grind to force a stop and follow it up with a tough shot.

Sometimes you get Jekyll, sometimes you get Hyde; no matter which version of The Magic show up, it’s scary.

The Numbers

How do each of these rising stars’ stats compare to the rest of the league?

Franz’ +3.5 EPM rating ranks 19th in Estimated Plus Minus in the 96th percentile overall. Wagner has an elilte rating on both ends of the floor, rating in. the 90th percentile defensively (+1.3 D-EPM), and 91st percentile offensively (+2.2 O-EPM). Only 6 players with a higher EPM than Franz’ 3.5 EPM are also in the 90th percentile or higher on both ends, via Dunks and Threes. That puts Wagner in the company of NBA Stars who impact both sides of the floor, revealing that Franz is one of the best young rising two-way wings in the league.

This impact rating isn’t as high for Banchero despite his impressive box score stats, yet still rates in the 80th percentile overall (+1.0 EPM) and in the 81st percentile offensively (+0.9 O-EPM). In another impact metric called LEBRON, Paolo actually has a slight edge now at 1.43 to Franz 1.38 rating, while Franz still has the lead in LEBRON WAR (Wins Above Replacement) with 4.32 to Paolo’s 3.28.

Many Magic fans and skeptics around the league often debate who is the better player of the two, based on these impact numbers being higher for Franz than Paolo for one reason or another. Two prominent analytics folks have weighed in on the matter to help provide insight; in fact, its the people who created these very two impact metrics.


Taylor Snarr, the creator of EPM, was asked about this very topic in a recent F5 newsletter by Owen Phillips; here’s his thoughts:

I asked Krishna Narsu, the inventor of LEBRON, about this topic directly on my podcast, Learning Basketball. At the time, and up to that point in their careers, Franz had steadily rated higher than Paolo, despite Paolo scoring more points per game.

One might expect Franz’ impact to go down as his usage has gone up, but it hasn’t. Franz has stayed efficient when given Paolo’s #1 option touches due to injury, becoming the primary option defenses have to stop, yet his impact is as high as ever.

Krishna’s conclusion here at the time is that Franz impact stats are generally higher due to his playmaking creation for others, his shooting gravity on and off the ball, and his matchup difficulty as a more active defender. Doing more little things that impact winning than just smooth scoring and tough shot making.

That said, Paolo has finally reached the same level of impact via this metric, showing Paolo’s impact has risen as of late for making winning plays, improving as a shooter, producing as a scorer, and being a reliable scoring hub for the team.

Franz “Boogie” has been putting up legit All-Star numbers all season, averaging 24 PPG – 6 REB – 5 AST / 2 TO – 1 STL,
while shooting 54% 2P% on 13 2PA – 32% 3P% on 6 3PA – 88% FT% on 5 FTA. Franz has had marquee moments throughout the season, like going supersonic anytime he sees the Lakers, featuring a stepback game-winning kill shot on a 37 PTS – 11 AST – 6 REB – 4 STL evening in L.A.

Since the All-Star break, “The Beast” Banchero is scoring 29 PPG, which is 2nd only to The NBA’s Leading Scorer tough shot-making MVP-favorite superstar in Oklahoma City, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander. Paolo’s averaging 29 PTS – 7 REB – 4 AST / 2 TO – 1 STL in that 17gm stretch, while shooting 51% 2P% on 14 2PA – 37% 3P% on 7 3PA – 80% FT% on 10 FTA.

This success didn’t happen overnight; Paolo’s battled a tough injury all season, one that has taken time to fully recover from even while playing games. The standard is so high for the former Duke star that when he was averaging 22 PTS 7 REB 5 AST for 21 games after coming back from injury, outsiders still expected more.

One smart evaluator who looks at the game with a unique eye for physical movement pointed out he didn’t quite have the same leg strength back yet that makes his game so deadly. (h/t @Polarfall on Twitter)

I asked Paolo about his injuries, the physical and mental aspect of recovering and finding a rhythm after the comeback, and how the team’s mindset has been dealing with so many different injuries this season to key players.

Averaging 31 PPG – 8 REB – 4 AST – 1 STL in 14 games since this question, it’s safe to say Banchero is back to his star self.

Against Charlotte on March 25th, Paolo became the first Magic player since Dwight to drop 30+ PTS in four straight games, joining Dwight, Shaquille O’Neal, and Tracy McGrady as the only players in team history to drop 30+ PTS in 4+ straight games, via Magic PR. Against Dallas on March 27th, Paolo did it again, becoming has become the first Orlando Magic player since T-Mac and Shaq as the only players in team history to score 30+ PTS in FIVE straight games

That only scratches the surface of the scoring run The Beast is on. Paolo’s dropped 30+ PTS sixteen times this season Banchero’s posted fifteen straight games with 20+ PTS, a Career-High. Throw in four games scoring 40+ PTS for good measure, including his career-high 50-Burger against Indiana in the 5th game of the season, just before going down to injury. For all we know, Paolo could have been headed for an All-NBA team between his production and where the Magic could have been in the standings had he (Franz, Suggs, Moritz, Goga) not lost so many games to injury.

Seemingly every night, Paolo Banchero ties or sets a record not seen in Orlando since the Magic Mount Rushmore stars who have graced the blue and white pinstripes before him.

• First player to score 40+ PTS in multiple games in multiple seasons since T-Mac & Shaq after his shootout with Steph (56 PTS) in Orlando.
• Against Toronto, he drilled the most FGs made in a quarter without a miss (8/8 FG) since Shaq.
• After a game in Atlanta, Banchero became the 3rd player in Magic history to have multiple games of 35+ PTS, 10+ REB, and 5+ AST, joining, you guessed it, T-Mac (16x) and Shaq (3x).

I asked Orlando Magic Head Coach Jamahl Mosley how Sequencing factors into his playcalling to keep defenses on their toes with counters of similar plays: “it’s part of the game. it’s the game read. it’s the game feel.”

By The Numbers…

Banchero & Wagner have shared three games this season where they both post a statline of 25+ PTS – 5+ AST – 5+ REB in the same game, the most for a set of teammates in Orlando Magic history.


Paolo is scoring 25.7 PPG, tied for 10th with Cade Cunningham, meaning he scores slightly more points per game than Devin Booker, Anthony Davis, LaMelo Ball, Damian Lillard, Kyrie Irving, LeBron James, Karl-Anthony Towns, and Zion Williamson.

Franz is scoring 24.4 PPG, ranking 20th among all players, sitting just ahead of Steph Curry, Trae Young, and Victor Wembanyama

Paolo’s 7.2 RPG is T-47th with Zion Williamson.
Franz’s 5.7 RPG is T-92nd with Jaylin Williams, Anthony Edwards, Dyson Daniels, and Guerschon Yabusele.

Franz and Paolo are both tied at exactly 4.7 APG a piece, T-51st among all players.

Franz 1.3 SPG is T-37th with many including Lonzo Ball, Bilal Coulibaly, Amen Thompson, Jaren Jackson Jr., Bam Adebayo, Anthony Davis, Jaylen Brown, Donovan Mitchell, and Chris Paul.
Paolo’s 0.8 SPG is T-169th with many players including Giannis Antetokoumnpo, Ben Simmons, Evan Mobley.

Paolo draws the 3rd most Free Throws at 8.3 FTA/gm, converting 73% FT%.
Franz draws the T-25th most Free Throws at 5.4 FTA/gm, hitting 86% FT%.

Paolo shoots the T-56rd most three pointers per game at 6 3PA, the same volume as Gradey Dick, Cade Cunningham, Jamal Murray, Jalen Brunson, and Naz Reid(!)
Franz shoots 30% 3P% from deep on the T-65th most three pointers per game at 5.8 3PA, the same volume as LeBron James, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Jared McCain, Desmond Bane, Andrew Wiggins, Jaylen Brown, Max Strus, and Kristaps Porzingis.

Franz is shooting 36% in the clutch on 15/42 FG.
Paolo is shooting 47% in the clutch on 21/45 FG.

Franz Wagner isn’t just Top-15 in PPG and Fast Break PTS, he’s rated even higher in four areas; Franz is exactly the 6th best player in the league this season at scoring Points in the Paint (13 PTS), Points on Drives (10 PTS), and Points off Turnovers (4 PTS) via the Orlando Magic broadcast team.

Paolo Banchero is similarly great in some of these areas, as these are two of the premier paint penetrators in the sport. Paolo averages as many PTS off Drives as Giannis (8.2), T-16th, and scores exactly 10 PTS in the Paint per game, ranking 29th.

In 809 MIN with Franz & Paolo both ON the court together, Orlando has a +2.2 Net Rating.
In 979 MIN with just Franz ON the court and Paolo OFF, Orlando has a +7.74 Net Rating.
In 484 MIN with just Paolo ON the court and Franz OFF, Orlando has a -8.85 Net Rating.

One thought with having multiple point guard creators on the same team is that one can be on the floor at all times; the same can be applied to having two stars, especially when both can serve as an offensive hub every second on the floor.

As the season has gone on, it appears these two are staggered more and more, where goal is to play as few seconds of basketball as possible without one or both of them on the floor – against Charlotte before the All-Star break it was 6 minutes; against Atlanta after the ASB it was 30 seconds; against Memphis the next night it was 4 minutes.

I asked Jamahl Mosley after the Grizzlies matchup what factors come into play when deciding between staggering Franz’ and Paolo’s minutes compared to the benefits of playing them together and keeping a balanced second unit in place behind them:

Volume & Efficiency

Below’s a chart that compares the two stars shooting touch in three efficient shot locations:

Shooting Touch – At The Rim, Free Throw Line, Beyond The Arc

Paolo shoots better from deep on and off the ball.

Franz shows better touch on a much higher volume of shots at the rim on layups and FLOATAs.

Franz shoots much better at the pinstripe, while Paolo gets to the line more often.

Synergy help us see the volume and efficiency for each Player based on the playtypes they categorize every possession into.

Keep in mind, that these tracking stats are still a work in progress; these stats measure the *final* action of a possession – for example, if a team runs 2 pick-and-rolls in a row bending the defense, and then follows that up with 1 handoff that results in shot attempt, that play is tracked as 1 Handoff Possession.

The two charts below shows how Franz and Paolo stack up in every Synergy Playtype as scorers, while 3 playtypes including both scoring and passing to teammates to compare them as Scoring Creator Offensive Engines: ISO, Post Ups, P&R Ball-Handler

To no surprise, Paolo Banchero has the efficiency edge in ISOs, Drives, and Spot Ups; what is interesting is Paolo is also more efficient on Cuts and in Transition this year.

As expected, Franz Wagner is more efficient running Handoffs and P&R as the ball-handler; what may come as a surprise is that Franz is also more efficient as the P&R Roll-Man and as a Post-Up creator hub this season.

One important note is that volume for some of these plays is drastically different. Paolo has 16 handoffs, 35 cuts, 75 P&R roll-man plays on the year; Franz is up to 68 handoffs, 90 cuts, and 30 P&R roll man possessions.

Both big wings like to leak out in Transition, scoring 1.14 and 1.22 PPP respectively on a total of 391 fast break possession between them.

What really stands out for Paolo is his scoring versatility – Paolo averages between 0.93 PPP and 0.99 PPP on his five most common halfcourt playtypes, which might be roughly average efficiency overall, but on high volume these can be reliable actions.

As for Franz, the combined P&R Ball-Handler efficiency and volume jumps off the page, creating over 1.0 per possession on extremely high volume. His efficiency is very good and doesn’t drop off the more the team runs him through the action. This is by far Orlando’s most reliable set to create a good shot through Franz as the offensive engine.

The numbers supporting Post Ups for Franz makes one do a double take. Paolo is the star swishing beautiful baseline fadeaways, yet the numbers say Franz creates more efficient offense for the team when running through him through the post. Franz creates 1.13 PPP on 104 possessions; Paolo creates 0.98 PPP on 131 possessions.

I asked Jamahl Mosley about the advantages created by moving Franz off ball around screens before initiating the downhill action, like in sets like Chicago and Peja where Franz will run around the perimeter through screen(s) into a handoff that helps give him separation from his defender.

Jamahl notes that this idea of creating advantages by moving off ball, gain ahead of steam, running defenders through screens, to create a situation where the scorer can shoot drive or kick with an advantage already created, is the goal for not just Franz, but all of the team’s scoring options:

Tracking The Assist Combo

Sometimes Boogie looks for The Beast; sometimes The Beast needs a little Boogie.

Paolo assisted Franz 40 times this year, the most of any duo on the team; Franz found Paolo for 27 dimes this season, the T-5th most of any combo on the team.

They have both assisted each other directly at the rim exactly 18 times a piece, T-3rd most of any duo on the team.

Considering how few games these two have actually played together, these marks show how they both prioritize looking for each other on the court for the most efficient shot in halfcourt – at the rim.

As for the costars finding the rest of the team for good looks at the rim and beyond the arc, Franz has created more total shots for his teammates (89 3PT AST, 110 ATR AST) compared to Paolo’s totals (72 3PT AST, 52 ATR AST), partially due to playing more games this season.

However, when the number is based on racking up dimes on a more comparable one-to-one scale of per one hundred possessions, the shot creation rates look much closer.

Paolo creates more looks for the team from deep (3.02 3PT AST per 100 poss),
but fewer dimes at the rim. (2.13 ATR AST per 100 poss)

Franz creates fewer looks for the team from deep (2.8 3PT AST per 100 poss),
and a much higher rate of dimes at the rim. (3.4 ATR AST per 100 poss)

(assist combo numbers via 3.18.25)

Boogie Nights

Some of Orlando’s many 4pt swings each game comes when the defense forces a turnover, the ball finds Franz, he immediately looks up the floor, and finds Banchero streaking down the sideline outlet for a breakaway slam, or he pushes the pace to create a 2-on-1 alley oop lob to Banchero on the break.

The majority of Franz assists to Paolo came in transition for 10 fast break buckets.

The 2nd-most assists from Franz to Paolo came on the move in the half court, with 8 assists coming on off ball cuts and 3pt kickouts.

The Franz-Paolo Pick-and-Roll hasn’t been used often, but it stands as a powerful weapon up Orlando’s sleeve going forward that unlocks Paolo as a short-roll playmaker and Franz as an on-ball creator with a screen, both pulling attention from defenses.

I asked Jamahl Mosley how high the volume of the Franz-Paolo P&R could reach for Orlando as one of the team’s staples sets:

“I really do believe that those two create a problem. And so, when you have two of your best players in P&R — they’ve got to make a decision — and they’re both great playmakers. And so, I think them being able to make plays and read off each other is something that can cause problems for a defense down the stretch.” – Jamahl Mosley

This action sets up the playfinishers around those two to finish at the rim or from beyond the arc. Send two at Franz or Paolo if you like living in your own nightmare.

Franz found Paolo 3 times for assists when running P&R. On two other possessions, Paolo drew a shooting foul after Franz found him in the 2-man P&R set.

Unleash The Beast

Oddly, Paolo did not assist Franz one time in any inverted P&R, and that action doesn’t seem to be used often where Paolo is initiating and Franz is the roll man, probably since this duo’s strengths may be most effective as a combination in the order described before with Franz on ball and Paolo setting the first screen.

Paolo most often found Franz on off ball cuts or relocation threes 21 times.

Winning early post positioning has been key to unlocking quick easy baskets for these two, looking for each other up the court once one has secured the advantage under the rim deep into the paint before the defense is set. One of the most reliable buckets every game is Franz taking off in transition, planting his feet deep in the paint, posting up the first mismatch he sees. Paolo hit ahead to Franz in transition 13 times.

Paolo also found Franz 2 times in the post after securing positioning advantage in halfcourt situations. Sometimes you’ll see one set a back screen for the other in the middle of a set like Horns to help force switches and create mismatches, shown here:

Finding a guard concept that works around Paolo and Franz is the next step

Orlando’s up and down season can be directly attributed to injuries first, and shooting luck second. Even this late in the season has seen volatile stretches, with the team now 6-4 in their last 10 after bouncing back from an 5-game losing streak. What’s been the difference as of late outside of the chemistry of these two stars?

Anthony Black‘s play has been the wildcard factor for this team. His defense is reliable enough to start every night, and his decision-making feel is special, two traits that define the strengths of his game. Even though he’s just in Year 2, he’s become the team’s third scorer, first option off the bench, and third big playmaker who can initiate offense and even space the floor.

When AB’s shot is falling and he finds a way to score, this team is often more competitive:

in Orlando’s 33 wins with AB playing, he scores 11 PPG on 60% TS% and 43% 3P%
in Orlando’s 37 losses with AB playing, he scores 8 PPG on 45% TS% and 20% 3P%

Black continues to develop the 3pt shot despite receiving constant criticism of his shot. In his last 31 games, Black is shooting 40% 3P% from deep on 2.6 3PAs per game; in his 39 games prior, Anthony shot 24% 3P% on 2.4 3PA per game.

I asked Anthony Black about his about his changing role due to injuries and his 3pt development after a 4/5 3P outing “I’m pretty comfortable playing where I’m at right now. It gives me a chance to operate a little bit, while also playing some minutes with our two guys.”

Another underrated factor has been the addition of 33yo Cory Joseph into the starting lineup.

You know a team is shuffling the rotation with injuries when arguably the 7th guard on the roster to start the year is now their most trustworthy starter.

Credit to Cory for doing the little things that have earned that spot: team-first ball movement, hit the open shot, run some O when called upon, take what the D gives you, hold your own defensively. Joseph serves as a fine example of the type of connector floor-stretching plus-defender guard who can slide right into an offense featuring two big wing playmaking initiators.

Orlando has a +8.9 rating in 173 MIN when they play Cory Joseph alongside Boogie and The Beast.

Cory earned the starting job after an impressive stretch against Toronto. Despite losing the game, Orlando mounted a 14pt comeback after inserting Joseph into the game to close with 10 MIN to play for the first time all night, making Cory a +14 on the night. He’s started ever since, leading Orlando to a .500 record after a rough stretch after the All-Star break.

I asked Jamahl Mosley how much he trusts the veteran experience of Cory Joseph after the game:

There’s no more debate to be had; Franz Wagner & Paolo Banchero are NBA Stars, rising suns for a team with the 2nd best defense in the league for the second straight season.

What separates the Orlando Magic from pretenders to contenders is that volatile 3pt factor. Whether they find a guard who can draw two on the ball with pull-up 3pt gravity or flank these two supernovas with more consistent shooters, that’s the last step to go from making the playoffs to competing in them.

The cool thing about this article is it starts and ends with the same picture – the Magic’s defense runs on Chaos Energy, and once Boogie and The Beast carve out the super to their star, this team might just mess around and find the rings they covet.

Stats via Synergy, NBA Stats, Basketball Reference, Dunks and Threes, and Magic PR as of 03.27.25 unless otherwise noted

The post Boogie and The Beast appeared first on Swish Theory.

For our most recent mock draft, featuring written explanations for each pick, go here.

1. Cooper Flagg, Duke

Do-it-all wing with premium skill and athleticism

2. Dylan Harper, Rutgers

Bruising driving guard and potent scorer

3. Collin Murray-Boyles, South Carolina

Elite playmaking forward on both sides of the ball

4. VJ Edgecombe, Baylor

Explosive scoring guard and lockdown defender

5. Khaman Maluach, Duke

Towering young big with upside as a play finisher and rim protector

6. Derik Queen, Maryland

Creative big-bodied drive threat who can pass

7. Jeremiah Fears, Oklahoma

Young lead guard with dribble, pass, shoot upside

8. Ace Bailey, Rutgers

Versatile shooting wing with dynamic athleticism

9. Tre Johnson, Texas

Tough shotmaker all over the court

10. Jase Richardson, Michigan State

Three-level scoring guard with quick processing

11. Kasparas Jakucionis, Illinois

Pull-up maestro with passing creativity

12. Kon Knueppel, Duke

Three-point sniper with shooting versatility and P&R playmaking chops

13. Asa Newell, Georgia

Versatile defender, glass-crashing post-up threat developing three point shot

14. Noa Essengue, ULM

Sinewy rim attacker with budding ball skills and defensive versatility

15. Thomas Sorber, Georgetown

Tough freshman PF with strong feel for the game

16. Noah Penda, Le Mans

Menacing wing defender and offensive connector

17. Labaron Philon, Alabama

Gadgety, versatile, productive guard every team could use

18. Miles Byrd, San Diego State

Stocks machine with shooting potential

19. Ben Saraf, ULM

Best passer in class as a game managing point guard and scorer

20. Bennett Stirtz, Drake

Potentially underrated lead guard up-transfer from Division II

21. Nolan Traore, Saint-Quentin

Quick first-step point guard who is a willing shooter and active defender

22. Nique Clifford, Colorado State

Fluid-moving upperclassman who does a little of everything

23. Kam Jones, Marquette

Paint touch machine, three-level scorer who can pass

24. Rasheer Fleming, Saint Joseph’s

Big wing who can shoot with a 7’5” wingspan

25. Johni Broome, Auburn

Versatile playmaking forward as one of best NCAA players in the country

26. Danny Wolf, Michigan

Unique ball-handling point center with quick processing skills

27. Liam McNeeley, Connecticut

Three-point threat who attacks closeouts looking to finish strong

28. Carter Bryant, Arizona

Talented freshman wing providing a punch off the bench

29. Ryan Kalkbrenner, Creighton

Big man upperclassman who dominates the paint on both ends

30. JT Toppin, Texas Tech

High motor, high producing rim attacker

31. Yaxel Lendeborg, UAB

Elbow/post hub with a well-rounded driving game and plus passing

32. Anthony Robinson II, Missouri

Point-of-attack demon with some ball skills

33. Tahaad Pettiford, Auburn

Dribble-pass-shoot quick small guard

34. Will Riley, Illinois

Under-developed young wing shooter and passer

35. Adou Thiero, Arkansas

Physical slasher who creates events on defense

36. Joshua Jefferson, Iowa State

Physical defender with some connector chops as a big wing

37. Egor Demin, BYU

Elite passer with inconsistent play against top competition

38. Darrion Williams, Texas Tech

Skilled upperclassman who can shoot and pass from the wing

39. Alex Condon, Florida

Sharp-passing sophomore big who can grease an offense and get stocks

40. Walter Clayton Jr.

High volume three point shooter who can do some guard things

41. JoJo Tugler, Houston

+12 wingspan for this mobile rim protector

42. Boogie Fland, Arkansas

Game managing shooter and passer

43. Hugo Gonzalez, Real Madrid

Toolsy high motor player with versatility

44. Flory Bidunga, Kansas

Undersized but hyper-athletic rangy big

45. Alex Karaban, Connecticut

Elite shooter and wing defender, national champion

46. Dailyn Swain, Xavier

Sparks of dribble-pass-shoot ability for this athletic wing

47. Javon Small, West Virginia

Highly productive lead guard essential to WVU

48. Rocco Zikarsky, Brisbane

18-year-old with a chance to be best rim protector in class

49. Ian Jackson, North Carolina

Pure scoring freshman who can catch fire like few others

50. Bogoljub Markovic, KK Mega

Astounding rebounder with some intriguing movement skills at 6’11”

51. Drake Powell, North Carolina

Hyperactive freshman defender with shooting potential

52. Tomislav Ivisic, Illinois

Floor-spacing center and ball-mover

53. Chad Baker-Mazara, Auburn

Upperclassman utility wing with a smooth shot

54. Zvonimir Ivisic, Arkansas

PNR roll & pop 7’2” big

55. Max Shulga, VCU

Strong combo guard who can run some PNR

56. Xaivian Lee, Princeton

Shifty guard who can table set and let it fly from deep

57. Alvaro Folgueiras, Robert Morris

Ultra-versatile big wing hiding in mid majors

58. Eric Dixon, Villanova

Pure shooting 6’8” upperclassman, one of best players in NCAA

59. Otega Oweh, Kentucky

Tough-nosed defender and transition threat

The post 2025 NBA Draft Big Board 2.0 appeared first on Swish Theory.