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

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

Tre Johnson (Washington Wizards)

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

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

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

Will Riley (Washington Wizards)

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

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

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

Liam McNeeley (Charlotte Hornets)

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

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

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

Chaz Lanier (Detroit Pistons)

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

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

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

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

Egor Dёmin (Brooklyn Nets)

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

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

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

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

Joan Beringer (Minnesota Timberwolves)

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

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

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

Adou Thiero (Los Angeles Lakers)

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

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

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

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

Noah Penda (Orlando Magic)

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

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

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

Cedric Coward (Memphis Grizzlies)

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

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

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

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

Khaman Maluach (Phoenix Suns)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oklahoma City Thunder

Rookies: Bennett Stirtz, Aday Mara

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

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

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

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

San Antonio Spurs

Rookies: Tarris Reed Jr., Jayden Quaintance

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

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

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

Los Angeles Lakers

Rookies: Cameron Carr

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

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

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

Golden State Warriors

Rookies: Yaxel Lendeborg

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

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

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

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

Atlanta Hawks

Rookies: Zuby Ejiofor, Kingston Flemings

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

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

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

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

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

Philadelphia 76ers

Rookies: Labaron Philon Jr.

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

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

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

Toronto Raptors

Rookies: Allen Graves

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

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

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

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

Charlotte Hornets

Rookies: Christian Anderson, Hannes Steinbach

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

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

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

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

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

Washington Wizards

Rookies: AJ Dybantsa

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

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

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

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

Utah Jazz

Rookies: Darryn Peterson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atlanta Hawks: Kingston Flemings’ rim finishing

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

Boston Celtics: Chris Cenac’s shot diet

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

Brooklyn Nets: Mikel Brown ancillary production

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

Charlotte Hornets: Hannes Steinbach’s passing

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

Chicago Bulls: Caleb Wilson’s defensive impact

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

Cleveland Cavaliers: Meleek Thomas’ inside the arc scoring

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

Dallas Mavericks: Morez Johnson’s scoring burden

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

Denver Nuggets: Trevon Brazile’s continued feel progression

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

Detroit Pistons: Ebuka Okorie’s passing role

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

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

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

Houston Rockets: Bruce Thornton’s rim pressure

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

Indiana Pacers: Braden Smith’s physical presence

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

Los Angeles Clippers: Keaton Wagler, offensive focal point

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

Los Angeles Lakers: Cameron Carr’s passing

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

Memphis Grizzlies: Cameron Boozer, proven winner

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

Miami Heat: What kind of guard is Ryan Conwell?

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

Milwaukee Bucks: Brayden Burries showing us the special

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

Minnesota Timberwolves: Isaiah Evans’ rim protection

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

New Orleans Pelicans: Kobe Bufkin, reclamation project

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

New York Knicks: Tyler Nickel’s defense

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

Oklahoma City Thunder: Aday Mara and Bennett Stirtz synergy

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

Orlando Magic: Izaiyah Nelson’s physicality

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

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

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

Phoenix Suns: Koa Peat’s playmaking

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

Portland Trail Blazers: Yang Hansen, post operator

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

Sacramento Kings: Darius Acuff’s defense

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

San Antonio Spurs: Tarris Reed’s passing

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

Toronto Raptors: The Toronto Wrecking Balls

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

Utah Jazz: Darryn Peterson passing

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

Washington Wizards: AJ Dybantsa’s on-ball scaling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pass: Nate Ament (Wing/Forward, Tennessee)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft: Ebuka Okorie (Guard, Stanford)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pass: Bennett Stirtz (Guard, Iowa)

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

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

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

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

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

Draft: Yaxel Lendeborg (Forward/Big, Michigan)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pass: Aday Mara (Big, Michigan)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Swish Theory’s strongest asset is its people. All from different locations, professions, academic backgrounds and rooting for teams across the league, but all thinking critically about the sport they love.

This breadth of diversity makes write-ups like these so functional. So many diverse perspectives in a room limits blind spots, and it also allows us to build our own sort of consensus.

That’s exactly why we turned to thirteen of our best draft experts to answer a simple question: of the players not invited to the NBA Combine, who will have the best NBA career?

Unsurprisingly, the group came up with a wide range of answers. There are a few repeats (Tamin Lipsey was selected three times), but even where there’s overlap, the writers’ reasoning and approach clearly differs. Each of the thirteen responses reflects the writer’s unique evaluatory paradigm.

Enjoy!

Matt Powers – Tucker DeVries, Indiana

An immediate value-source for players is when they have access to what I like to call a nexus point. A nexus point is when a player is in a situation where their abilities unlock a multi-decision point where they can take advantage in multiple ways. When a player gets in that position, the opponent’s defense has to be perfect or else this offensive player is able to get an immediate advantage. Think of AJ Dybantsa getting into his midrange where he can 1.) finish a middie at a good percentage, 2.) use nifty footwork to get to the rim, or 3.) kick out to punish help. This makes it very difficult to have a perfect defensive possession against AJ. Another example would be Tyrese Haliburton in transition, where his ultra-quick processing allows him to find multiple teammates or hit a pull-up three.

Tucker DeVries has access to a nexus point as convenient as anyone in this class. For DeVries, it comes off the catch on the wing. His options are as follows: 1.) take the catch and shoot three if open (46% from three on open looks the last two seasons), 2.) skip the ball if coverage over-loads, or 3.) pull-up if his man blows by or plays tight. That is also the order of effectiveness, as DeVries is a great spot up shooter, good passer and okay pull-up shooter. But it is rare to find this kind of offensive optionality late in the draft.

I’m particularly moved by DeVries’ sense of passing angles in the tape. His assist rate wasn’t sky high, as he didn’t run a lot of pick and roll, but had an elite assist-to-turnover ratio (2.2), validating his quality of decision-making. He is particularly adept skip passing, which forces the defense to stay committed to the opposite-side perimeter, therefore opening up alleys to the basket. His 86% free throw shooting confirms his caliber of shooter, which should translate into good three point gravity in combination with his quick trigger from deep (68 3PAR).

The easy issue to point out is poor athleticism, but DeVries is still 6’6.25’’ and 222 pounds, able to hide on whichever SF/PF is slower, and is high feel enough to keep a defensive shell. We’ve seen other spot up shooters like Baylor Scheierman and Sam Hauser hang in defensively, though both are a bit more agile than DeVries. But Tucker is stronger than both, and has equal if not better feel. That size locks in his passing value as well, able to find angles that your average spot up guard cannot.

Tucker DeVries seems like a potential spot starter in an upside case, a reliable spacer who won’t make any glaring errors. Drafting a player in the late second, or signing as an UDFA, who can provide this clearcut of offensive value should be a boon to whoever snags him.

Joseph George- Tamin Lipsey, Iowa State

Maybe I’m copping out a bit by choosing Lipsey, who absolutely should have been invited to the NBA Combine after yet another monstrous defensive season for Iowa State. But then again, a player feeling like a cop-out answer does reflect extremely positively on them.

Lipsey basically hits on all the feel indicators: he’s now put up three college seasons with a steal percentage over 4.0%, and combines his turnover generation with ball security on the other end. Of course, Lipsey fits very neatly into the type of prospect that has gotten little shine in the pre-draft process but ends up surprising doubters. The intersection of high-major guards who are sub-6’4″, have a steal rate north of 3.8%, an AST/TO above 2.8, and logged real rotation minutes is actually surprisingly small. Among those thirteen players are Fred VanVleet, T.J. McConnell, Jamal Shead, Reece Beekman, Tyler Ennis, and Jacob Gilyard. Of course, it’s not guaranteed Lipsey achieves these outcomes, but the pathway is certainly there for real rotation value.

I often try to frame my evaluations in terms of projected six-factor RAPM, because it helps me isolate which traits actually move the needle for teams. The framework decomposes a player’s impact into six channels, three on each end: scoring efficiency, turnovers, and rebounding for offense (oTS, oTOV, oREB) and their defensive mirrors (dTS, dTOV, dREB). Lipsey grades out positively in several of them. His ball pressure and turnover generation should drive strong dTOV value, his ball security shows up in oTOV, and his work on the glass will give him a positive oREB despite his size.

Of course, the bear case for Lipsey isn’t something that doesn’t matter: his scoring efficiency is below average and has not shown a lot of development. But is Lipsey really as bad a scorer as the broader efficiency metrics would suggest? Perhaps not. His unassisted shot diet actually looks somewhat encouraging – 83% of his shots at the rim are self-created, and he’s somewhat comfortable pulling up in the midrange, even at modest efficiency.

I acknowledge his profile is unconventional, but jagged prospects with good, tangible feel are often great value bets, especially when they’ve maintained this type of production over multiple seasons. I think that should warrant Lipsey a second look as we get closer to draft day.

Lukas Spinnler – Nate Bittle, Oregon

Playing four years at Oregon, Bittle has a number of damning flaws for a center that should theoretically disqualify him from NBA conversations. He has a low dunk frequency (9 total dunks on the season), nor does he efficiently score inside the arc or grab offensive rebounds at rates consistent with NBA caliber big men.

Paradoxically, these weaknesses may actually open up a more intriguing, indirect pathway for Bittle as the league’s next great “Wing Center.“

The blueprint for his archetype is Jaylin Williams of the Oklahoma City Thunder. Williams functions as a big on defense via defensive rebounding influence and rim deterrence, while mimicking the three-point rate and assist rate of a wing. In this way, he alleviates the limited two-point and offensive rebounding influence typically associated with center-sized players. Strength in these isolated skills has willed Jay-Will to a top 80 placement in time-decay RAPM, offering compelling evidence that this mold can be an absolute lineup construction cheat code.

The traits needed to replicate this impact are a high level of cognition alongside shooting volume and a baseline of big skills. Bittle appears well on his way. Since 2008, there has been just one drafted player over 6’6 to hit the following thresholds: 5 dunks, 17 DREB%, 1.6 STL%, and 8 3PA/100. That player would be Sixers forward Paul George. If drafted, Bittle would be second player to qualify. To do this while being a true 7 footer is truly outlier.

Nate won‘t have the same DREB influence that Jaylin has provided, but he does projecs as a much better rim protector. He offers strong rim protection metrics (7.5 BLK%, -7% on-off opponent rim frequency, -2.5 on-off opponent rim FG%) alongside elite measurements (7 feet tall, 250 lb, with a +6 wingspan).

A low-ish drive frequency and high scoring assisted rate coupled with his age could potentially deny “wing Bittle.“ This is nonetheless a worthwhile risk to me considering how special his blend of cognition, touch and traditional center defense is.

Avi Chauhan – Duke Miles, Vanderbilt

Miles is one of the longest-tenured players in college basketball, with stops at Troy, High Point, Oklahoma, and Vanderbilt across 6 years. He was a freshman at the same time as Cade Cunningham and Scottie Barnes.

Miles is also one of the lightest players eligible to be selected in the 2026 draft, as he measured in at 170 pounds with just a 6’0.75 shoeless frame at the G League Combine. In fact, Miles was a late invite to the G-League Combine, not amongst the 44 players initially selected.

This may seem puzzling at first glance. Miles was one of the most productive guards in the country against legitimate competition: he racked up a 9.9 BPM and top 40 RAPM against top 100 teams. However, with extreme weaknesses in his frame and age, it’s understandable why Miles has failed to gain as much traction as his basketball production would imply.

Miles also pairs two extreme strengths: his scoring touch and defensive aptitude.

Miles is a legitimate four-level scorer. He’s a strong driver, with career finishing numbers well above that of a smaller guard. Miles is quick, but his interior effectiveness is built on his deceleration and body control within traffic. When caught amongst bodies in the paint, he has the patience to pause and get to scoops or step throughs. His lack of weight does not prevent him from baiting opposing bigs to foul; this year, he had a monstrous 50 free-throw rate.

But while Miles can get to his spots, what’s especially standout (and arguably more important) is his touch. Despite a high degree of difficulty by virtue of their unassistedness, Miles has consistently made runners, scoop shots, or pull-ups inside the arc. Across his college career, he’s shot nearly 45% on non-rim 2s, a rate akin to some of the NBA’s best midrange shotsmen a la Jalen Brunson or Ajay Mitchell. Making tons of rim attempts on top of efficiently converting midrangers gives Miles a gaudy career 2P above 55%. This sort of inside-arc efficiency on a micro-assisted rate is difficult to find comparisons for, especially with Miles’ diminutive frame.

An even better indication of Miles’ superb touch is his elite FT%. There have been just 11 other high major player-seasons of 90% FT on 150 FTAs or more. The vast majority were poor finishers; John Tonje was the only player of this group who matched Miles’ finishing and FT% goodness. But he was well below-average at accumulating steals and assists, while these happen to be Miles’ defining skill singularities (yes, even beyond his scoring touch).

This is the crux of what makes Miles such an interesting bet. Of course, Miles is the standard small guard with elite cognition. With a 5% steal rate and 27% assist rate during his final NCAA season, his pre-college profile stacks up favorably to two smalls that recently played in the Finals: TJ McConnell and Jose Alvarado. But Miles is also a legitimately special scorer, with strengths as a rim finisher, foul drawer, midrange shooter, and free throw maker. The chance he can rely on this scoring touch at his size and age is small, but the small chance that he can sustain high usage should be considered additive. It’s an interesting take on versatility, giving Miles a number of avenues to successful floor outcomes even with a firmly capped ceiling.

How many players since 2008 have shot a career 62% at the rim, 42% on far 2s, 80% at the line, while drawing a 35 free throw rate? It’s a list of 40 players.

How many of these players were guards, with a career assist rate over 23%? Just five: Derrick White, Ajay Mitchell, De’Vante Jones, Jalen Brunson, and Miles. And De’Vante had no dunks across his 108 game college career, while Miles has 8.

Miles is much smaller and older than these players were as prospects, but his combination of touch and cognition is impressive even relative to players of his height that usually excel in these regards. He has both the skill singularity and well-roundedness to stick in the league.

Miles’ biggest hole may not be his age, or his frame. I think it’s actually his ability to make threes. Miles has a stiff upper body and exaggeratedly swings his legs forward on both C&S and OTD 3s. On the shooting load, there are moments where his knees are flexed well ahead of his toes. This type of stiff, swaying shooting motion makes his C&S attempts look overly difficult, and it contributed to a career low 32% C&S 3P conversion rate despite a career high FT% at Vanderbilt. I trust his pristine shooting indicators to help him regress towards a more palatable career 3P% in the NBA, but the shooting downside should be considered.

Still, his mediocre career 3P% is somewhat mild if it’s truly his biggest weakness. This sort of two-pronged skill, as a scorer and basketball thinker, should give him a strong floor when paired with strong general production metrics. Amongst the cohort of players not invited to even the NBA Combine, that’s more than enough for me.

Joe Hulbert – Vsevolod Ishchenko, Lokomotiv Kuban

This is one I’ve gone back and forth on. But the player I have ultimately landed on is Seva Ishchenko. The Russian wing is a player who has been on my radar since February. What is first striking about him is how low he can get with his handle considering how big he is. He measures at 6’8 and there are reports he has a 7 foot wingspan (waiting for confirmation on that). He’s able to get low with the ball and possesses pretty much all of the physical skills to be able to access all options on the flowchart once he reaches the paint.

The term ‘pass drive and shoot’ is often thrown around too much and quite often I find myself disagreeing like I did in my Amari Allen article (linked here). With Ishchenko, the label absolutely fits. He’s shot 46 percent from beyond the arc this season, and generally has shown good shooting indicators throughout his career. He’s steadily improved from 73 percent at the line, to 79 percent over the past 3 years, and has 2 straight seasons shooting 40 percent or more from beyond, with that number being 46 percent this year.

The shot doesn’t look overly convincing mechanically, but it goes in, and he possesses an excellent first step and good east-west moves which is important for a corner shooter if they want to drive baseline. His volume isn’t notably high right now, but it’s worth noting his team ranks in just the 9th percentile of spot-up jumper frequency, with their offensive focus largely being in other areas. He can definitely up the volume; he largely is being used in lower usage areas such as a cutter when in the half-court, with the majority of his diet coming in transition.

The biggest knock (particularly from the sheet side of our staff) will be the turnovers. Quite often with European prospects it’s one play-type that will tank turnovers. In Ischenko’s case he does seem to turn the ball over quite often. From watching every turnover he’s made, the most common problem seems to be being overwhelmed at a crowded paint. I don’t see a major processing issue outside of PNRs, which leads me to think the turnover rate can drop with a more defined role and less of a transition emphasis. The PNR reps were not great, but I wouldn’t have that as a huge focus at the next level.

On that topic, it’s also worth noting how poor of a shooting team he has around him. Of their top 8 players, only former Mount Olive PF Mike Moore can shoot the ball. The rest of the team including guards is a very poor shooting supporting cast which will do a good job explaining why he can struggle driving off the catch late in the shot clock. Poor spacing will lead to poor decisions and his driving abilities are kind of suppressed by Kuban’s end of clock concepts. He also is largely pigeonholed for PNR duties because he’s one of very few players on the roster with any perimeter threat.

Defensively, he’s strong and able to generate stocks, but he’s also positionally sound and quite versatile. I think this gives him a lot of lineup versatility which is something I value a lot in second round picks. This is truthfully the main reason I’m in on him, and why he’s in my top 30. I think he can be a well above average defender. Often guys with that label don’t have much on offense, but I think his driving and shooting are both at a good level. The passing tools might be there for connective ability; that’s a short way off at the moment.

I often find wings to be misvalued. I think the traditional 3-and-D wing is an overrated role and having some kind of offensive viability in ways other than spot-up shooting is important. Think of the baseline drives Jaden McDaniels gives the Timberwolves in playoff settings as an example. I think Ishchenko has enough there alongside the defense that I’m willing to plant my flag on him. I think his worst tendencies are empowered by Kuban’s lack of spacing, and I really think he can be an excellent wing at the NBA level.

Will Morris- Cade Tyson, Minnesota

When looking at deep sleepers, it’s especially important to find special traits rather than fully complete players. Chances are you aren’t going to find an All-Star on the undrafted free agent market. Cade Tyson is far from perfect, and has had one of the stranger college careers that I can remember. I was a big fan of him after a couple of elite shooting seasons at Belmont. Then he transferred to UNC and fell out of the rotation. Then he transferred to Minnesota and was the undisputed best player on a Big Ten team, averaging 19.6 points per game on 50-41-82 splits.

Say what you want about his poor stint at UNC, but Tyson is an elite shooter at 6’7”. There have been 57 6’6”+ players since 2008 to hit over 450 career threes and shoot over 40%. 13 of them were drafted, and some of the notable undrafted guys to hit those marks were Sam Hauser and Duncan Robinson. When we talk about special traits, skills that will actually get you on an NBA floor, Tyson has it with his combination of size and versatile shooting. He has a smooth release coming off of off-ball actions and is confident to take some. I’ve also been consistently impressed with his feel for cutting and finishing. He had 10 dunks this year and shot 76.9% at the rim.

There’s a legitimate chance that Tyson sticks around the league for a bit as a shooting specialist that isn’t THAT un-athletic. He has a legitimate NBA skill, and you always bet on legitimate NBA skills as the draft goes deeper.

Michael Neff – Tamin Lipsey

Lipsey might feel like a boring answer. That’s part of why I feel great about it. Lipsey’s been on draft radars for a while now, making his omission from the NBA Combine that much stranger. He’s a 3x All-Big 12 player and 3x Big 12 All-Defensive player, he has a career 4.4 STL%, and a 2.4 AST:TO ratio. He simply has an iron-clad resume of feel for the game. Defense is the real calling card that gives Lipsey a chance to succeed. We just got done watching yet another NBA playoffs where positive defender guards lined every rotation among the last teams standing. Lipsey’s arguably been college basketball’s best perimeter defender over the last three years. Sure, his size could hinder him, but he’ll make life difficult for opposing ball handlers and generate turnovers.

With guards, everyone bends over backwards to find special offensive players, but the commonality amongst all the guards in the NBA Finals? Defense. Even Jalen Brunson competes and uses his strength well on that end. Lipsey could belong in those conversations someday. Whether or not his offense works out remains to be seen. Personally, I’m optimistic. The playmaking and turnover avoidance stand out, but Lipsey quietly has a good unassisted shotmaking profile too. He shot 62.1% at the rim on 56% unassisted shots, and an eye-opening 43.6% from midrange on 86.4% unassisted shots. Lipsey’s no stranger to physicality in the paint (5.2 OREB% for a 6’0 guard is pretty ridiculous), and he’s got the feel to function in an NBA offense.

I don’t think we’re talking about a star guard here by any means. Lipsey’s outside shot (31.6% this year) and touch (65.6 FT% this year, 71% career) just don’t scream dynamic scorer. However, Lipsey has the mentality, feel, and defense to make an impact for winning teams. I can’t help but watch guys like TJ McConnell and Jose Alvarado make an impact in recent NBA Finals and not have a glimmer of optimism for Lipsey to translate.

Emiliano – Robert McCray V, Florida State

There are some things I’ve learned in the time I spent watching and analyzing G League basketball in recent years. One of them is that guard-sized players who can get to the rim, can stack steals, rack up some blocks while also adding some creation tend to translate to the NBA, even if their scoring profile looks tricky at times.

I’m thinking about players like Quenton Jackson or Jamaree Bouyea, just considering some of the most recent examples. Guys who can score at the G League level but can do much more stuff to make the translation smoother and that allows them to “fit in.”

There’s a guy that impacts the game in a similar way and I could envision in a NBA guard rotation sooner rather than later: Robert McCray V.

McCray was a redshirt senior at Florida State University this past season and he has a somewhat unimpressive physique: standing at 6’2.75 barefoot with a 6’4 wingspan and 193 pound frame, he certainly isn’t the biggest or longest guard around.

However, he possesses some impressive athletic features. With a 43.0 max vert, the best 3/4 Court Sprint and other solid results, he was clearly one of the winners of the G League Elite Camp strength and agility tests.

And his athletic tools look very functional both on tape and in the sheets. He plays with pace, glides through defenses and has some very strong statistical indicators. The mix of 2.1 BLK%, 2.5 STL%, 16 dunks, 33.7 Free Throw Rate, 45% rim frequency, 43.8 AST% and 1.7 AST/TO is a cool, funky ancillary package for a 6’3 guard.

Simply put, that intersection of functional athleticism, creation and decent feel is not that common.

There are some real concerns about his scoring profile considering his unremarkable three point shooting paired with a 55% on close 2s and a certain tendency to settle for mid range jumpers more often than ideal. He maybe lacks a clear NBA skill to build around, but his ability to impact the game in a variety of ways makes him an underrated prospect in the depth of the draft compared to other guards on the margins whose profile is centered around their scoring (and their usage, which can make the translation much more difficult).

Ben Pfeifer – Duke Miles, Vanderbilt

Vanderbilt senior guard Duke Miles will turn 25 midway through his rookie year. He hovers around six feet tall and didn’t become a star until his sixth and final college season. And yet, Miles’ confluence of skills, traits and statistical indicators projects him as a role-playing point guard who should thrive at the next level paired with a bigger initiator.

He authored a phenomenal final season in Nashville, specifically on the defensive end. Beyond his gargantuan five percent steal rate, no other guard in this class defended near his level on tape. Sharp instincts, elite core and lower body strength and a plus-five-ish (6’5.25”) wingspan allow him to defend well above his listed height.

Miles excelled in multiple different defensive roles his team tasked him with, most obviously thriving as an off-ball disruptor, intercepting passes and mucking up actions. He boasts the lateral agility and anchor to withstand powerful slashers. And when needed, even against towering, NBA-sized big men, Miles bruised down low on switches, denied entry passes and disallowed deep position.

A potent and modern Vanderbilt offense helped him produce at a career level, and he’s no offensive slouch when projecting to the NBA. Miles canned 34.8 percent of his 9.5 3-point attempts per 100 possessions and sank 90.1% of his free throws. Sub-par burst, vertical pop and inconsistent on-ball decision making likely cap his on-ball ceiling, but that shotmaking should suit him for a complementary offensive role in the league.

As most great NBA role players were before the league, Miles is overqualified skill-wise for his likely role, boasting deft footwork, passing/dribbling/finishing ambidexterity and a unique driving rhythm that defenses struggled to pin down. He might occasionally moonlight as a creator with bench units, but any live-dribble juice he brings only boosts his odds of sticking around.

His film and statistical profile transposed onto a 19-year-old player likely earns top-20 consideration. But Miles is not a teenage prospect and wasn’t close to NBA-caliber at that stage of his career. All of these limitations render him a second-round player for me, but in a world where Jose Alvarado (rightfully) closed an NBA finals game for the eventual titles, I’ll take my chances on another overlooked guard with defensive superpowers and projectable strengths on both ends.

Ahmed Jama – Oscar Cluff, Purdue

Purdue big man Oscar Cluff is my pick amongst the ‘fringe’ draft prospects to greatly exceed expectations. Despite Cluff’s skillset being frequently associated with that of an anachronistic big, he has the touch (career 73.2% FT shooter) , passing (career 15% assist rate with a 1.6 A:TO to boot) , and the rebounding (career 19.7 total rebound%) of a budding star at the margins. At 24.5 years old, Cluff is the oldest NCAA prospect in the draft, but has built a resume comparable to the best professional big in the world outside of the NCAA and NBA.

Of all NCAA career profiles in Bart Torvik, Cluff is one of eight players to ever post an offensive rebounding rate over 13% , steal rate over 1%, and career FT% over 70%. Of the 8 players to fall into this career query, six were drafted!

However, Cluff’s impact has not been confined to box score production. In fact, Cluff was able to maintain stellar lineup data along each stop of his NCAA career. From the 2023-24 season Cluff spent at Washington State to his final collegiate season at Purdue, Cluff registered Adjusted Net Ratings of: +2.6, +12.4, and +12.6. The areas that Cluff most consistently influenced his teams’ stylistic profile were, predictably, offensive rebounding and turnover suppression. This consistency is a large part of Cluff’s appeal as a prospect. The lack of imagination needed to project what shape a player’s impact may take in the pros only stands to benefit decision makers and coaches alike.

Wafe – Nate Bittle

The prospect with the best projection in my NBA draft model not to receive a combine invite also happens to be my favorite, Oregon center Nate Bittle. A major part of my player evaluation is the concept of “zooming out”, focusing more on a player’s broad traits and abilities. In Bittle’s case, he is huge and skilled with impressive NCAA metrics: typically a recipe for an NBA career. The pasty stretch five invokes Jay Huff and Luke Kornet, two of the better undrafted steals in recent memory. Another point of comparison is Golden State’s Quentin Post, the 52nd overall pick in the 2024 draft who has massively overperformed his draft slot, currently placing 12th in the class in VORP. Despite being snubbed for the combine, the league would be foolish to allow an NBA caliber big man go undrafted.

Brandon Manuel – Quadir Copeland, Syracuse

Guards who have the ability at this age to get paint touches at will whilst not having tunnel vision are very rare. Copeland aptly possesses this ability.

You’d be hard pressed to find guards in the class who posses his combination of rim assists and rim pressure. He’s super crafty, but his craft doesn’t stop him from playing through contact. The shot needs work and he needs to learn how to read game state better and keep the TOs low, but Copeland’s raw skill and physicality is worth betting on.

Ryan Kaminski – Tamin Lipsey, Iowa State

Lipsey is a tough-nosed guard whose connector skills as a natural point guard with defensive tenacity should provide two-way impact at the next level. His activity is especially apparent on tape, where just a few possessions will reveal a barrage of winning plays. Lipsey will navigate screens at point of attack defensively, hit shooters in shooting pockets, and then set up play finishers as a table setter. He can also score a little bit off the dribble.

Role players who defend, dribble, pass, shoot, and score while looking for the open man when considering the best shot for the team are an easy fit as playoff level rotation players around stars. Lipsey’s skillset clears these thresholds on all fronts.

If you enjoyed this, be on the look-out for more roundtables coming before draft day.

The post Swish Roundtable: Favorite Draft Sleepers appeared first on Swish Theory.

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

The Good:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bad:

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

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

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

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

Value Proposition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impacting the game of basketball without the ball in your hands has always fascinated me. It’s easy to become enchanted by on-ball creators, but there are countless ways to generate value without the ball. But what does that actually look like in practice, what defines offensive impact away from the ball in a small role, and which macro-level traits contribute most to it?

My thesis is that the next competitive edge in basketball lies in valuing the intersection of three-point rate and offensive rebounding rate. Before diving into the 2026 NBA Draft prospects who embody this emerging trend, it’s necessary to examine the league’s recent stylistic evolution and provide evidence for my claim. 

The great teams of the past decade largely succeeded by creating an advantage in both shot selection and shot-making. During their legendary 73-9 season, the Warriors ranked near the bottom of the league in net possession value, yet completely separated themselves from the field by dominating the true shooting battle on both ends of the floor. The era of “Moreyball”, the Warriors’ Hampton Five, and the Cavaliers introduced a kind of Basketball 2.0: slow-footed big men were phased out, small-ball fives became essential, and offensive and defensive shot profiles were optimized at the expense of positional size, turnover aversion, and rebounding.

This graph shows the correlation between overall net rating and net possession rating (so the points per 100 that teams are over or below league average in the combined categories of Otov, Ddtov, Oreb, and Dreb) in 2016, proving that emphasizing the possession game wasn’t a hallmark of the good teams of that era.

Nearly a decade later, this correlation has risen to 0.783, and current market inefficiency appears to be the exact opposite. With a league-wide rise in analytics, the competitive advantage gained from an optimized shot diet is smaller than ever; separation from the field now has to come through winning the possession game. 

With this in mind, strong NBA offenses in recent years have focused on minimizing turnovers, with teams like Oklahoma City, Boston, and Indiana at the forefront of this trend. Interestingly, however, this season has revealed a divergence: the best teams in the league are crashing the glass at higher rates than we’ve seen in years. The correlation between O-Rating and Oreb% is the highest it`s ever been.

So rather than just O-TS and O-Tov, top-end offenses are trying to positively affect all 3 factors now. The question, then, is how this can be achieved consistently on a macro level.

The most effective approach appears to be maximizing both three-point rate and offensive rebound rate. These two elements are highly synergistic. Three-point shots typically produce a higher effective field goal percentage but a lower raw field goal percentage than average two-point attempts, which in turn creates more offensive rebounding opportunities. At the same time, a perimeter-oriented shot profile reduces turnover risk by limiting drives into traffic and the kind of high-risk passes that often lead to live-ball turnovers.

Additionally, long rebounds generated by missed three-pointers are easier to rebound out of five-out alignments, making it more valuable for perimeter players to crash the glass effectively. In theory, then, maximizing three-point rate and offensive rebounding should positively impact all three offensive pillars: efficiency, turnover avoidance, and possession generation. This is especially valuable in an environment where the marginal gains from shot diet optimization alone have diminished.

The clearest examples of this approach in action are the Boston Celtics and Charlotte Hornets. Both teams have significantly exceeded preseason expectations and their perceived talent levels, ranking among the top five in both three-point rate and offensive rebound rate, while also fielding the 2nd- and 6th-ranked offenses in the league, respectively. Their success stems from a combination of deliberate coaching emphasis and targeted roster construction, prioritizing players who fit this philosophy (e.g., Luka Garza, Hugo Gonzalez, Josh Green, Kon Knueppel).

From a team-building perspective, this trend is particularly intriguing because three-point rate and offensive rebounding are areas where complementary players can have an outsized impact. Traditionally, offensive value has been driven by high-usage players: pick-and-roll maestros, dominant post scorers, or heliocentric wings who control possessions. Even today, 14 of the top 15 players in five-year offensive RAPM rank well above average in offensive load.

This raises a key question: how can lower-usage perimeter players still drive positive offensive impact?

To explore this, I analyzed all non-big players with a substantial sample size who posted an offensive load below 30 (per Ben Taylor’s formula) while maintaining an offensive RAPM above +1 over a three-year sample. The goal was to identify the underlying traits and skills that sustain offensive value across thousands of possessions. I then examined their estimated influence across the three offensive factors—O-TS, O-TOV, and O-REB—and ran correlations to better understand which dimensions are most responsible for driving their impact.

(These are the r values of each of the factors compared to the player’s total O-RAPM.) 

As expected, O-TOV influence appears to be the most limited of the three factors, largely because sound decision-making has diminished value when it isn’t exercised at scale. That said, it remains possible to generate meaningful impact in this area, even in a lower-usage role.

O-TS, by contrast, emerges as the primary driver of offensive value for low-usage perimeter players. A clear pattern appears when examining the sample: players like Sam Hauser, Isaiah Joe, and Luke Kennard consistently stand out. High-volume, high-efficiency three-point shooters exert a strong positive influence on team-wide true shooting, both through their own shot-making and the spacing advantages they create.

As outlined earlier, there is also a subset of players who provide significant value through offensive rebounding above positional average, even from the wing, while maintaining a high three-point rate. A prime example is Saddiq Bey, who has posted a +1.8 three-year O-RAPM while sustaining a 47% three-point rate and a 7.2% offensive rebound rate over his last 4,000 minutes.

This leads to a clear framework for the “ideal” complementary player. A player who both takes and makes threes at a high rate, crashes the offensive glass effectively, and avoids turnovers—though the emphasis tilts more heavily toward the first two traits.

To provide proof of concept for this rather theoretical skill intersection so far, we need to look no further than 2011-12 Ryan Anderson, who embodied this intersection like no other player ever. He took and made lots of 3s (55 3pr, 11.6 3pa/100 at 39%), still crashed the offensive glass (13 Oreb%) and avoided turnovers (97th percentile ctov%) while having a usage rate of 21.2%. The result? An offensive footprint adjacent to that of an MVP candidate. 

Anderson ranked 11th in O-xRAPM and 5th in O-LEBRON while carrying an offensive load comparable to players like PJ Washington or Noah Clowney this season, exclusively through increasing his team’s three-point rate, crashing the offensive glass, and avoiding turnovers.

Many of the league’s most impactful role players today fit within this framework, as well. The beauty of basketball is that a player’s skillset isn’t just a collection of isolated abilities, but rather a chain of interconnected traits, where strengths in one area can influence multiple aspects of the game simultaneously. Players with the feel and athleticism to generate offensive rebounds despite operating farther from the basket often also produce stocks at an above-average rate, positively impacting the defensive turnover battle and adding another layer of value to this archetype. (e.g., Tari Eason, Josh Minott, etc. 

There is, of course, a cause versus effect debate to be had. One could argue that many players on this list are forced into these “garbage man” roles to stay on the floor offensively due to a lack of traditional on-ball skills, rather than these being true strengths. While there is definitely some truth to this, it can just as easily be framed as a positive. Oreb/3pr maxxing is the easiest way for this athletic,  “defensive specialist” mold to stay on the floor, especially if they have any semblance of shooting touch, and it minimizes the offensive issues you would encounter with them if utilized differently. 

Allen Graves

Draft Twitter darling Allen Graves is coming off the most impressive possession value season in the Barttorvik era. He combines the cognition of a point guard with the physicality of a big man to a degree we haven’t really seen before.

Allen`s ancillary production has been mindbending right from the jump, but the big question coming into conference play was: how can he score in the league? A 4/5 hybrid who isn’t athletic enough to dunk or get out in transition frequently and doesn’t finish efficiently at the rim, while not having the prerequisite driving or shooting indicators of a wing, doesn’t have the best offensive projection in the NBA. The drastic improvements Graves made in these areas then have turned him into one of the most unique and underranked prospects ever.

A 14 Oreb% on the season is a historic mark, and maintaining that while upping his three-point rate is particularly intriguing in the context of this article. It provides a clear pathway to offensive value for Graves, combined with a more wing-adjacent scoring profile. Despite recent improvements, it is still reasonable to be skeptical of Graves’ two-point scoring at the NBA level, as he boasts a questionable combination of length and verticality. However, this matters less if he can get up threes and crash the offensive glass at a high rate.

Graves has magnet hands on the offensive glass, crashing hard and displacing opponents with his strong base

This year, Santa Clara’s offensive rebound rate improved by 7% with Graves on, while they upped their 3par by 4% v t220 comp.

Furthermore, Graves’ turnover aversion as a passer is special as well, an 8 TOV% and 2.5 A:TO ratio is essentially uncharted territory for a freshman non-guard. Elite offensive rebounder and turnover suppressor? We’re starting to get uncomfortably close to the aforementioned ideal of the complementary player. Graves’ recent development in terms of shooting volume and accuracy makes this concept all the more intriguing.

The most accurate NBA proxy is likely Tari Eason, with whom Graves shares a number of statistical indicators. The fact that Eason has a 7’2″ wingspan compared to Graves’ 7’0″, while also dunking at roughly twice the rate, is significant in this comparison.

Conversely, Tari is also one of the lowest-feel wings in the league, whereas Graves projects as one of the highest.

Tari has already rattled off multiple top-70 RAPM seasons in the league while being one of the worst two-point scorers and passers, largely on the strength of his offensive rebounding and defensive brilliance. This pathway seems realistic for Graves as well: only with the added benefits of superior ball security and a more stable shooting projection.

Maximizing 3PAR and OREB rate while minimizing turnovers should allow Graves to stay on the floor and wreak havoc defensively in a way few players can. His anticipation and hand-eye coordination are truly generational: Graves consistently capitalizes on opponent mistakes and projects as a high-level off-ball defender.

Losing a bit of weight to improve his lateral quickness would likely help his long-term projection as a wing, but, even in his current form, he stocks and boards at historic rates for a freshman.

Allen Graves is young, has the 6th-highest BPM in the country, and fits perfectly with what the sharpest front offices currently value. He’s still nowhere to be found on many consensus mock drafts, but in reality, he shouldn’t slip out of the top seven, and a smart team will reap the benefits.

Motiejus Krivas

While we have exclusively focused on wings so far, there is still plenty to be said about the value of bigs who can get up threes while still crashing the glass. I am generally lower on “stretch bigs” than most. Having your biggest player operate farther away from the basket limits your team’s influence at the rim in terms of both frequency and efficiency and limits your team Oreb% all while removing a key release valve for your primary ball handler in the dunker spot.

If your center excels at traditional interior skills, you are actively hurting your team by pulling him away from the rim. Nonetheless, there is value in overcoming the typical inverse relationship between Oreb rate and three-point rate, especially if said big isn’t an effective finisher in the paint.

Motiejus Krivas provides a highly intriguing case study. The 7’2″ Lithuanian out of Arizona has long been a draft Twitter favorite and has finally put together a draft-worthy season, largely due to his defensive brilliance and outlier mobility. While he rebounds (14.4 Oreb% / 19.9 Dreb%) and protects the rim like a true five (7.5 Blk%), he presents a paradoxical disconnect between his size, touch, and physicality indicators and his actual rim finishing and scoring process:

(Drafted >7‘0 with <65 Rim fg%, >35 midrange freq, <10 3par)

Krivas’ combination of low rim FG% and rim aversion is a significant ceiling capper at the next level. Arizona’s rim FG% drops by 9% (!!!) with him on the floor, while rim frequency declines by 4% against top-220 competition.

His struggles as a finisher largely stem from subpar verticality and a mediocre wingspan, combined with a high center of gravity. This prevents him from accessing favorable finishing angles and often forces him into less efficient hook shots. Furthermore, he tends to struggle with ball security when going up, making him easier to disrupt around the rim.

Only finishing 62% of his rim attempts as a center would usually be disqualifying for serious lottery consideration, but Krivas offers a different pathway to NBA success. He has some of the best touch of any 7’0+ player in recent memory.

This season, he’s shooting 78% from the line while converting 54% of his non-rim twos. Historically, the only 6’11+ players with center-adjacent physicality to match these touch indicators have gone on to become some of the best three-point shooters in the world, despite often showing limited three-point volume in college.

(High Major >6`11 u22 with >18 dreb%, >40 FTR, > 77 FT%, >40 far 2%) 

Reaching a 40-50 three-point rate would help Krivas stay on the floor even as his finishing margins shrink further at the NBA level, and he should have the mechanics and touch to get there. 

As addressed earlier, there is an inverse relationship between 3par and Oreb%. It is a lot more difficult to grab boards when you are spending less time near the basket, especially for bigs who typically lack the straight-line speed and coordination to crash effectively out of spot-up situations. Conversely, we have proof of concept for a player with a similar build to Krivas maintaining this Oreb value this year in Donovan Clingan.

Standing at 7’2”, 270 pounds, he has faced similar issues as a finisher, leading Portland to deploy him more as a spot-up shooter. Even in that role, he has still managed to maintain a stellar offensive rebound rate despite the higher 3pr. And, unlike “career 64 FT%” Clingan, Krivas actually projects as a plus shooter.

Providing this value on the margins will allow Krivas to stay on the floor and become one of the league’s premier rim protectors. He is one of the most anomalous movers ever at his size. Motejeus’ technique, defensive awareness around the rim and processing are among the best in his class. So while he isn’t the most explosive vertical athlete or quickest leaper, his impact is still consistently felt at the rim.

Vs t220 comp, Arizona turns into the best 2pt defense in the country with him on the floor (25% opponent rim frequency, 22 FTR, 41 2p%). Meanwhile, they become mediocre once he’s off (33% opponent rim frequency, 37 FTR, 52 2p%).

Ultimately, Krivas’ unique combination of offensive rebounding, touch and defensive prowess should be enough to overcome his precarious finishing, especially if he is able to develop into a respectable shooter, thus boosting his team’s 3pr while leading neutral offensive rebounding lineups.

Kashie Natt

I can’t help but root for the underdogs of draft discourse, and there probably isn’t a bigger one than Kashie Natt from Sam Houston State.  A super senior who spent his only D1 season playing in the CUSA and who has a 30 3pr, 20 usg% while only converting 48% of his shots at the rim? What could possibly be the appeal? He draws comparisons to a recent “margin win” of the league: Jordan Goodwin.

Jordan Goodwin embodies the essence of this philosophical piece, a rather untalented offensive player who crashes glass and gets up 3s just enough to stay on the court and unleash his enormous defensive value.

 Employing players who provide guard-level cognition with big-man physicality can be an extreme value add and significantly ease lineup construction, provided the rest of their skill set is adequate.

Natt’s ability to rack up steals (4.2 stl%) and rebounds (near 10 Oreb% / 24 Dreb% at that size is anomalous), alongside impressive verticality and physicality (13 dunks and a 2 blk% at 6’3”), are strong indicators. These are all shared strengths with the aforementioned  Goodwin, who has since become an NBA contributor despite his poor two-point scoring.

However, a much smaller sample, weaker competition, and a significant gap in both scoring and playmaking volume could completely hinder Natt’s ability to reach an NBA floor. Fortunately, he has two factors working in his favor: free throw percentage and the positional necessity of maintaining a high three-point rate as a pseudo-guard. Similar to Goodwin, Natt’s precarious two-point scoring and ball handling relative to position will force him into a 50+ 3par if an NBA team takes a chance on him. Unlike Goodwin, however, he has posted near 80% from the free throw line this season, something Jordan never approached as a prospect, suggesting a stronger baseline indicator for future shooting translation.

Natt’s path to the league hinges on his anthropometrics. Standing at 6’3”, 215 pounds with a 6’10” wingspan, Goodwin had the physical profile that allows him to play his style at the NBA level. If Natt can approximate that, he becomes a compelling UDFA flyer and a franchise can stress test how reliable his shooting truly is, all while providing guard-level turnover influence and big rebounding.

We don’t settle for mediocrity around here; we chase outliers, and it doesn’t get more outlier than Kashie Natt.

Paul McNeil

After a rather disappointing freshman season at NC State, McNeil has finally carved out a major role this year. Funnily enough, Paul McNeil is possibly the closest match to my earlier definition of the “perfect role player” in the Bart Torvik era:

A profile of 14.3 3PA/100 at 41.7%, alongside a 4.5 OREB% and 5 TOV%, is exactly what we are looking for, and McNeil has shown this same intersection in previous samples as well. In AAU, he posted a 2 A:TO ratio, a 71% three-point rate, and 1.1 offensive rebounds per game.

McNeil’s “off-screen” frequency and efficiency both rank in the 99th and 95th percentile, respectively. This is one of the most confident and best pure shooters in this class.

McNeil is also a good vertical athlete for his mold, posting a 1.7 BLK% and a 0.14 dunk rate over his career. For a movement shooter, that is a rare trait that helps him crash class at a high rate. 

Unfortunately, the rest of his profile raises concerns. At 6’5”, 180 pounds, he is effectively position-locked as a shooting guard while boasting the assisted rate (around 60% of his twos are assisted) and passing volume of a wing. There is at least some theoretical upside as a ball handler, as he has been highly efficient as a pick-and-roll operator, producing 1.3 points per possession across 30 total possessions, but the sample is extremely small.

His thin frame and mediocre handle significantly limit his ability to create off closeouts. As it stands, he is shooting just 20% on two-pointers off drives, further emphasizing these issues. 

Furthermore, while McNeil does block shots, his overall defensive production, combined with a low BMI, is subpar and puts him in precarious company.

(Paul McNeil is currently sitting at a -0.1 d-bpm and 19.2 usg) 

It would be in McNeil’s best interest to go back to college, put on some weight, and improve his ball skills so he can be more of a guard at the next level, but even in his current form, there is a certain appeal to his game. Outlier ball security and shot making, alongside a moderately high O-reb rate, is a frictionless skillset that scales extremely well next to other ball handlers. A more refined McNeil could be similar to Max Strus, one of the finest offensive role players in basketball.

(Strus’ superior BMI+ creation volume matters in this comp, but McNeil being the better shooter and way more turnover averse could make this comparison work) 

I am curious if and to what degree these players will stick in the league, but they serve as case studies for a much larger trend amongst NBA Teams. The true value of “3par/oreb maxxing” lies within its duality.  It can help conceal rather problematic offensive skillsets and singular weaknesses (like Krivas’ rim finishing or Natt`s 2pt scoring) and provides a pathway to acceptable offensive value, which then allows these players to put in work on the other side of the court. On the other hand, I can’t stress the potential ceiling of this approach enough if they hit certain athletic and touch thresholds. A frictionless playstyle that perfectly fits next to ball-dominant creators to max out possessions while taking the most efficient perimeter shot on the court at a high rate. 

 Smart front offices will continue targeting such players, building upon the modern principles of Morey ball with traditional size. 

The post The Budding Basketball Revolution, and Why You Should Draft Allen Graves and Motiejus Krivas appeared first on Swish Theory.

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

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

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

What about his passing?

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

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

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

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

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

SGA – 17.7 (1st)

Jokic – 15.73 (2nd)
Luka – 15.2 (3rd)

Wemby – 13.6 (4th)

Brown – 7.0 (26th)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and the ACC champion regular season + tournament trophies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Film

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

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

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

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

The Data
(as of 03.19.26)

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

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

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

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

Synergy Playtypes:

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

Excellent, Versatile Scoring Profile:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shooting Touch Indicators

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

Overall Scoring & Creation

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

All-Time NCAA & ACC Ranks

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

BPM History

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

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

Cerebro Ratings & NCAA Data Viz

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

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

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

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

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

Efficient Shooting Line, High Usage, Low Turnovers

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

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

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

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

← Rewind to 2023: Scouting The Montverde Sunshine Classic


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introducing the concept of density-dependent factors

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Credits @www.msudeer.msstate.edu)

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

NBA Ecosystem

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

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

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

Density-dependent Growth and roster building

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brooklyn Nets, a concerning habitat?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historic examples

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

The 2023-24 Spurs roster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natural selection and density dependence

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

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

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

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

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

Wrapping it up

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

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

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