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

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

Role Scaling

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

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

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

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

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

Role Transformation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All due to brilliant role scaling and role transformation.

Cutting Both Ways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summing Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Role Expansion Bet

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

Braylon Mullins is perhaps the best example of that.

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

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

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

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

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

The Skill Development Bet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Production Translation Bet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that’s what makes it a bet.

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

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

Player evaluation is tough. An analogy that comes to mind is trying to locate a ship in the distance when you’re in the middle of a monsoon. The ship is moving — players change, sometimes drastically, season to season — and you only get glimpses of what it really looks like when things steady and you get a moment of insight.

The waves are our foundation for analysis, the greater context in which we evaluate what “good” even means. A quick visit to nbarapm.com shows that even players with over a decade of experience have vastly different valuations based on what metric you choose. Anthony Davis, for example, grades out as the #8 player since 1997 by peak LEBRON; peak DARKO has him #54; peak RAPM? Outside the top 100. Now, a closer inspection would help untangle these differences, but the point stands: this ranking stuff isn’t easy.

A System of Systems

As a non-professional in the space, taking this seriously since 2021, I have tried to focus on one major aspect of player evaluation per year.

Year 1, writing with The Stepien, I tackled archetypes. The benefits involved understanding nexuses of impact. I came up with monikers for every type of connector based on identifiable player groupings; I better understood rim protection by separating those who stay near the basket from those who defend different distances from the hoop; I came up with a custom metric for tough shotmaking; and assessed potential primary advantage creators through film-based analysis. While this system helped identify some diamonds in the rough (i.e., Julian Champagnie, Orlando Robinson, Jabari Walker), it missed the forest for the trees, as I devalued those who didn’t fit into these distinct buckets.

Year 2, writing for Swish Theory as co-founder and Editor-in-Chief, I again mixed stats and film, separating players by their draft-year resume. I started with “whiteboard” prospects, players whose production declined as competition increased, trying to suss out whether that trend would hold at the NBA level, too. Then I tackled “everything everywhere” prospects, who met an array of statistical thresholds with play not falling off against the top NCAA teams. I finished with “flawed freshmen” prospects, who had glaring holes in their games, where I offered prescriptions to better translate to the NBA. I used this accumulation of analysis to forecast where each player would rank on a good team in their prime. This led to much better results: my 2023 top 30 currently ranks #1 of 75 public boards despite having one of the lowest correlations to actual draft results (evaluation per Tawny Park Metrics). In particular, my process made me appreciate Ausar Thompson (my #4) and Dereck Lively (my #8).

Year 3, I took a drastically different approach. I evaluated players on three axes: production, feel, and athleticism. My production analysis led Zach Edey to becoming my easy #1 prospect. Analyzing feel led me to make an outlier call on Oso Ighodaro (and yes, I’m still very high on Nikola Topic). Athleticism I actually found the toughest, but it’s why I remain very high on Jonathan Mogbo, potentially getting a shot on the defense-needy Sacramento Kings. Again, I found some success: my top 30 currently ranks #32 of 113 boards. This is largely thanks to placing Oso in my lottery, while also fading Zaccharie Risacher and Dalton Knecht (and I still believe in Reed Sheppard and Ron Holland).

Year 4, I tried all kinds of things. First, I graded every player across ten categories, representing different avenues of contribution on the court (three-point talent, midrange talent, rim finishing talent, passing talent, etc.) and attempted to put appropriate weights for each one. This method fell prey to rose-colored glasses: if my instincts were to be high on a player, this led to unreasonably high grades in not just one but multiple areas of impact. Noting this limitation mid-cycle, I then switched to forecasting Offensive Estimated Plus-Minus (O-EPM) and Defensive Estimated Plus-Minus (D-EPM) for every player. But the weakness there is assigning values to players with similar profiles, when the interaction of skills is more complex than that. The results? Not great so far — for example, my struggle to find a comparable high-EPM player to Kon Knueppel led me to rank him in the second half of the lottery, a clear mistake already.

Finally, we arrive at 2026. This cycle, I really went through it, trying out about 10 different ways to value prospects. My favorite one was realizing there are, essentially, three different ways to stop a player: send help, trade for help, or pray. While I believe this is the optimal way to think about player impact, it is also extremely hard to put values on those factors. And we have examples like Kevin Durant, where he is somewhat weak at handling pressure, doesn’t necessarily require a trade for specific personnel to stop him…but boy, you better call upon whatever religion you can to PRAY he misses. I utilized more statistical data than ever before, marking down unique metrics for every player on a weekly basis. This led to discoveries, like the value of averaging FT% and 2P%, where 60% appears to be a key threshold. However, I settled on a system that blended my ranking process for my two most successful boards, with some key edits. Rather than production, feel, and athleticism, I gave everyone a rank for athleticism, non-shooting skill, and finishing touch. I switched out production and feel for their redundancies, difficult to disentangle and prone to that same rose-tinted analysis. Similar to 2023, I graded these factors by where a player would rank on a good team in their prime. We’ll see how it works out.

RAPM Supremacy

But the more I think about it, long-term RAPM is king. Most importantly, the distinct factors give a guideline for how basketball works in the most tangible way. Dissecting what made Rajon Rondo peak at only +0.8 offensive True Shooting impact compared to Ricky Rubio at +2.3 makes one much better at understanding hoops in general. I started the offseason by putting the names of 122 players with 10+ NBA seasons under their belts in a spreadsheet. I then put my best estimate for each of the six factors for all players at their 5-year peak, learning about each factor as I went along. By the end of the exercise, I consistently got within 1 point of each player’s peak RAPM.

The difficulty here is that a player’s RAPM factor composition may change drastically over the course of their career with role changes. Consider Jrue Holiday going from elite in defensive True Shooting impact in 2018-2021 to then switching to an elite offensive True Shooting booster with the Celtics. Once again, we are aiming at a constantly moving target.

Kingston Flemings: My #2 Prospect

Given these difficulties grading the RAPM factors against one another — again, it’s easy to be rosy on every factor for a favorite prospect, when it’s unrealistic that that player contributes to contradictory factors at once — I created what would be my final 2026 system: grading where the key underlying elements which make players valuable would rank within the league at that player’s peak. Athleticism, non-shooting skill, and finishing touch.

Let’s talk Kingston Flemings. Mid-cycle, I had a moment of panic over Flemings’ profile: he didn’t take many threes for a guard and rarely got to the free-throw line. That combination is a death knell for many guard prospects. And especially for ones who, like Flemings, do not have a reliable floater.

But let’s look at Kingston’s tools, which are the true ingredients for a player becoming great. He is clearly very athletic, getting the best Combine Score of any first-round guard in the 2026 draft. His 40.5-inch max vertical means he can challenge rim protectors at the NBA level, with 12% of his rim makes being dunks (compare that to Ebuka Okorie at 6%, Darius Acuff at 5%, or Keaton Wagler at 0%). He also graded in the 87th percentile or better compared to all Combine guards for each of the lane agility, sprint, and shuttle run tests. This athleticism is functional, too: his 3% steal rate and 1.3% block rate are both great for a high major freshman point guard. His short wingspan (only one inch above his height) has clearly not limited this defensive production or ability to dunk with a crease.

For non-shooting skill, we see Kingston as one of the best passers in all of college basketball as a freshman. And consider his predecessor at Houston, Jamal Shead. Shead’s sophomore NCAA season passing stats were very similar to Flemings’ as a freshman. Fast forward to the NBA, and Shead is putting up a 31% assist rate with a 4.0 assist-to-turnover ratio, one of the most effective passers in the league. The skill is evident in Flemings’ process, probing into the paint with his elite quickness and consistently making quick reads with accurate delivery. In spite of his low rim rate, with more midrange than rim attempts, Houston’s rim rate and rim finishing rose by seven and six points, respectively, when Kingston was on the court.

As far as shooting touch goes, Flemings put up 85% shooting from the line, 39% from three (40% self-created), 44% in the midrange (82% self-created), and 57% at the rim (77% self-created). The shot profile is the problem, but Houston’s system is one of extreme midrange reliance, 9th in the country in midrange frequency and nearly last in the NCAA in rim frequency and free throw rate. Flemings’ reluctance to shoot threes and occasional struggles to find optimal finishing angles are two problems he needs to figure out. But I will always bet on a basketball genius of his level of acumen to figure it out over those who didn’t sport Kingston’s gaudy feel indicators, which show up as quickly on tape as one would expect given the numbers.

This #2 ranking also reveals my skepticism around AJ Dybantsa, Darryn Peterson, and Caleb Wilson, but I view all four as very close to each other as prospects. If Dybantsa’s three ball comes around and defensive effort sharpens, I will have made a mistake. If Darryn can showcase another gear as a passer, he likely surpasses Kingston as well. I am most concerned with ranking Caleb Wilson low, as my offseason dedication to reviewing Hall of Fame player profiles reveals he shares many common characteristics with top 50 players of all time.

But, returning to RAPM, it is easy to see Flemings providing a major boost to his team’s offensive True Shooting while suppressing turnovers, and creating turnovers on the defensive end while still hanging in as a physical defender who will prevent his man from getting easy looks. He’s also a solid rebounder for a point guard. In particular, offensive engines can have huge impacts on team offensive efficiency, as the ceiling is higher for that factor than any other. If he can transition to Morey-ball, moving on from Houston’s tendencies, that true shooting boost might be among league leaders. He isn’t quite the level of passer as Ricky Rubio, but he has a major advantage in finishing touch.

Looking Ahead

Having tried the numerous grading systems outlined above, I am settling into this three-factor (athleticism, non-shooting skill, finishing touch) estimate, as each represents a different, distinct way to win on the court. While not completely fungible, and with some difficulty discerning what separates one from another in the fine details (film remains important), each provides a discrete way for a prospect to succeed at the highest level. You can succeed with poor athleticism if you have elite skill and shooting; you can succeed as a poor ballhandler if you’re athletic and can shoot; you can succeed as a poor shooter if you can dribble and are athletic. And so forth.

As far as 2027 prospects go, Tyler Tanner has been a favorite of mine since early in his freshman season, when he remarkably started his college career with 33 assists before recording a single turnover. He remains criminally underrated by mainstream mocks, with his draft range appearing to be 15-30 currently. Listen, I get the concerns: 5’10.75” and 169 pounds would rule out 99.9999% of the population from being an NBA player. But boy, is there plenty of evidence that he’s in that 0.0001%.

How often do players of his build get 17 dunks while playing in the toughest conference? Or post a 50.5 free-throw rate against top-50 teams? While maintaining a 1.1% block rate? Add, on top of that, he shot 85% from the free-throw line with a 2.7 assist-to-turnover ratio. His weakness is three-point volume and midrange efficiency, but both improved over the season as his on-ball responsibility increased. He was the best player on a team where five senior teammates are receiving genuine NBA looks (Nickel, Miles, Washington, Okereke, McGlockton). He is likely to boost his team’s offensive efficiency, reduce its turnover rate, and increase its turnovers forced. The big question mark is defensive True Shooting impact: his ability to always cause havoc might muck up opposing offenses, but without significant strength gain he will concede good looks.

Simply put, Tanner is a functional feel outlier. Check out Lukas Spinnler’s deep dive into how this might play out at the NBA level (as well as for Chance Mallory, by Elias).

My other outlier call is that Pat Ngongba has genuine All-Star upside. With his strength, mobility, length, and hand-eye coordination, Ngongba will be one of the best defensive True Shooting suppressors in the league. On top of that, his strong touch, Morey-ball-ness, and great passing for a center mean a likely very positive offensive True Shooting impact too. The concern is defensive rebounding, as he will allow more second-chance points than your average center, but the two-way efficiency impact will make that tolerable — and he’s a good rebounder on the offensive end.

Wrapping Up

Beyond anything, my biggest lesson is that draft analysis should be….fun. Validating numbers with tape watch means you can make your eyes reconcile with the ledger in all kinds of ways. Figuring out your own system, utilizing all tools available, will certainly give you a unique edge, as ultimately we are all at different points on the tidal wave, always attempting to reduce the error caused by limitations of perception and bias. Stay true to your process, and good outcomes will follow.

The post Lessons from the 2026 NBA Draft Cycle appeared first on Swish Theory.

Cover image by Ross Pinsler.

Tyler Tanner, by Lukas Spinnler

One of the many beauties of basketball, to me, lies in the coexistence of era-specific trends and its overarching principles. Whether we look at the 1950s or the modern game, the holistic approach to basketball remains largely unchanged. Teams still need lineups that can score efficiently, rebound effectively, and handle and distribute the ball without committing turnovers.

Traditionally, ball-handling responsibilities have been assigned to the point guard—the smallest and usually most skilled player on the floor. In recent years, however, we have seen a shift away from smaller point guards toward maximizing size across all positions, alongside a rising baseline of skill throughout the league.

In 2006, 26 players stood 6’1″ or under and logged at least 750 minutes in the league. Twenty years later, that number has dropped to just 15 players. As with many recent trends, this feels like an overcorrection to me. Smaller guards can still be highly impactful NBA players.

Let’s start with the commonly cited counterarguments against small guards: with the rise of point forwards, the “traditional” point guard has become obsolete, and it is more valuable to fill out guard positions with size. While there is some truth to this, the actual number of forwards capable of handling a significant on-ball load in the half-court is lower than it might initially appear.

Much of the value provided by ball-handling forwards comes in transition rather than in structured half-court offense. Even NBA All-Stars like Jalen Johnson and Deni Avdija have below-league-average efficiency in half-court situations currently, often accompanied by elevated scoring turnover rates.

There are also inherent physical challenges: at 6’8″ or taller, it is simply more difficult to maintain a low, controlled dribble and consistently access high-value areas of the court compared to smaller players.

Even the apex of this archetype, LeBron James, didn’t have half-court creation seasons quite up to par with other ATG perimeter creators; it was his transition play that made him one of the best offensive players ever.

Having smaller ball-handling options is not a redundant feature within a team; in fact, it should be a highly additive element to a team’s global offense.

The most intuitive argument against small guards is that their lack of size hurts teams defensively. Smaller guards typically struggle to rebound and are more likely to be targeted in high-leverage situations, which can lead to diminishing defensive returns. These are, in fact, the natural trade-offs that come with less size, and the numbers tend to support this.

There is a positive correlation between height and both dTS and dREB influence according to timedecay RAPM. Smaller players generally have the least impactful contests and don’t provide a lot of resistance at the rim for opposing players. 

Conversely, this same tradeoff applies to a different facet of the game: small guards positively influence their team’s turnover economy on both ends of the floor.

Because this position carries the highest overall skill threshold and operates closest to the ground, smaller players are often exceptional at limiting their team’s turnovers while also generating them on the defensive end.

Moreover, the best teams in the league are placing greater emphasis than ever on winning the turnover battle as a way to gain a competitive edge, the perfect breeding ground for the resurgence of the small guard.

In 2016, the correlation between offensive turnover rate (oTOV) and offensive rating (ORtg) was r = 0.25, while the correlation between defensive turnover rate (dTOV) and defensive rating (DRtg) stood at r = 0.16. Fast forward ten years, and these figures have risen to 0.48 and 0.43, respectively, clearly illustrating the growing emphasis on turnover economy by successful teams.

So, how is this relevant for draft evaluations? The stylistic advantages that small guards provide remain extremely valuable and are perhaps even more sought after today than ever before, but they come with an important caveat. The “classic” point guard who neither rebounds nor holds up defensively is likely to be a net negative in the long run. Instead, teams should prioritize prospects who excel in traditional point guard skills while also simulating size.

A study conducted by our dear friend Colton last season supports this idea: the key differentiator between successful and unsuccessful guard prospects in the league is not traditional guard skills alone, but rather skills typically associated with other positions such as rebounding, shot-blocking, efficient two-point scoring, and drawing fouls.

Having a high TRB%, BLK%, or 2P% and free-throw rate allows a player to “play bigger” than their listed size and aligns their statistical footprint more closely with that of taller players, an essential factor given the thin margins for smaller prospects. Identifying these players is where true margin wins are made, and where the future of the point guard position likely lies. This heuristic perfectly applies to Vanderbilt guard Tyler Tanner.

Let’s address the elephant in the room first: Tyler Tanner is small. He measured in at around 6’0″ in shoes with a 6’4″ wingspan and 167 lb, which would make him one of the smallest players in the league. Under normal circumstances, I would agree with the general consensus that investing valuable draft capital in undersized guards is a risky proposition. However, Tanner presents a different case. He not only excels in the inherent strengths of small point guards but also simulates size as well as any 6’0″ player in recent memory.

Returning to the core advantages of smaller guards outlined earlier- positive turnover influence on both ends and elevated skill thresholds that translate into superior touch and ball-handling- Tanner stands out clearly. Over the course of his career, he has posted a 4.4 STL% and a 3.3 assist-to-turnover ratio. This points to one of the most cerebral players in the country, a notion that is consistently supported by the film.

Tanner is not an especially flashy passer, but he frequently makes the correct read. In many ways, he embodies the prototype of a traditional point guard: organizing the offense, initiating sets, and getting his teammates involved without sacrificing ball security. When his backcourt partner Duke Miles was off the floor, Tanner’s assist percentage jumped to 36%, with only a marginal increase in turnovers.

He is particularly effective in pick-and-roll situations, where he consistently finds his roll man and leverages his handle to create high-quality opportunities for teammates.

Vanderbilt was in the top 15 in team TO% this year largely due to Tyler’s ability as a ball handler and improved offensive toolkit. Tanner’s relatively low rim assist rate speaks to his overall risk aversion, but a -2% swing in team TO% probably makes this a positive tradeoff. 

He also boasts a pretty impressive handle; Tanner gets low on drives and can access pretty much any area on the court with his small-space coordination and burst, as evidenced by a 7.4 TO% on drives. 

This year he almost doubled (!!!!) his usage and improved his efficiency, all while maintaining elite ancillary production.

Especially Tanner’s touch leap is intriguing: 85 FT% places him in elite company and is more than adequate for a small guard. 

So far, so good. We have established that Tyler Tanner provides all the skills associated with a “classic” PG. He avoids turnovers and playmakes at a high rate with a favourable intersection of FT% and handle, all while forcing turnovers on the other end. These skills have historically been good indicators of NBA success, but there are still plenty of “misses”.

The differentiator between + NBA contributors and overseas pros who also excel at the aforementioned skills is hitting certain thresholds of functional size and athleticism, which will allow you to get on the court and offset the small margins of <6`3 players. In this case, we are looking for applied physicality (DREB%, FTR, 2P%) and verticality (BLK%, dunks).

Among the 10 underclassmen who approximated Tanner’s blend of cognition and touch, he ranks 5th in DREB%, 3rd in FTR, 3rd in 2P%, 3rd in BLK%, and first in total dunks. 

Tanner’s ability to play bigger than his size is what truly sets him apart. Recording 15+ dunks in a single season is impressive for any guard, let alone one standing at 6’0″. His vertical explosiveness is genuinely unique in that regard.

He converted 64% of his attempts at the rim this year (58% in the half court), alongside a 46 FTR, both of which point to an unusual level of physicality for a player of his size. Unlike many smaller guards, Tanner does not shy away from contact. Instead, he embraces it, using his vertical pop to generate separation and create better finishing angles.

He does get blocked a fair amount of times simply due to his size, but not shying away from contact at the rim is overall a net positive, one of the main reasons for his robust FTR. 

This also leads me into my main issue with Tanner, though: simulating size is valuable, but it’s not the same as actually possessing it. Tanner’s scoring profile is incongruent with his anthropometric profile. 

Tanner posted a 1.7 rim:non-rim ratio alongside a 35 3PAR on the season. While prioritizing rim attempts is not inherently problematic, it may not be sustainable at the next level. Most sub-6’1″ players who find offensive success in the NBA tend to be more rim-averse, instead leaning on floaters, midrange scoring, or high three-point volume to compensate for their physical limitations.

To his credit, Tanner has improved as a three-point shooter; his mechanics are pretty quick, and his overall shot diet of 3s seems to be pretty deep, indicating comfort from the NBA 3pt line.

However, his overall volume remains relatively low (7.7 3PA per 100 possessions), and he attempted fewer pull-up threes than most of his peers, a near prerequisite for primary on-ball guards at the next level. Only 32% of his threes are unassisted, a figure more typical of a wing than lead guard. 

He has converted 38% of his non-rim 2s this year, and, especially in the beginning of the year, it was clear that he felt uncomfortable falling back on midrange counters when cut off. Especially on runners, he experienced trouble organizing his feet, resulting in awkward misses.

As the year went on, though, Tanner grew noticeably more comfortable in his floater, an encouraging development.

In his first 26 games, Tanner had a floater frequency of 11.8% while only converting 17.5% of them; in his last 10 games, he sits at a 12.9% Frequency and 47.1% FG%. A positive trend in a fairly small sample. 

Defensively, Tanner’s anticipation and hand-eye coordination really stand out. He generates steals and deflections both on and off the ball with quick hands and timely rotations.

His foot speed also allows him to hold up reasonably well against drives, and he has shown the ability to navigate screens effectively when chasing opposing guards.

That said, Tanner’s lack of size, particularly his frame and strength, does show up in certain situations, leading to ineffective contests and easier scoring opportunities for opponents. The best small guard defenders tend to be stronger and more physically developed than Tyler currently is, making strength development a clear priority moving forward.

Ultimately, Tyler Tanner has a generational intersection of traits. His cognition paired with his athleticism is a highly unique baseline on its own, paired with superb free throw shooting and a high degree of physicality, with above-average DREB, FTR and 2P%. On the other hand, it remains a question whether his body and shot process will allow him to maximise these traits. He’s pretty light and doesn’t have a long wingspan while having a poor shot diet for his specific mold. Low 3pr and poor floater conversion/rim reliance is a scoring process that is hard to keep up considering below-average WS and BMI, even for his position. I am usually an advocate of these „trait-maxxed“ players, but Tanner’s margins are going to be razor thin. Betting on probable development in terms of shot profile (improved mid-range efficiency in conference play and outlier high ft% are a solid pathway to 40+ 3pr and a more balanced offensive approach) and strength gain could work, but the downside is high. Nonetheless, I remain much higher than consensus on Tanner, and expect him to return top 10 value in his eventual draft class. This is a special prospect that should be treated as such.

Chance Mallory, by Elias Reichek

The past NBA season culminated with the (relatively) diminutive Jalen Brunson hoisting the Bill Russell NBA Finals MVP trophy in San Antonio. The Knicks’ sprint to the Finals, captained by one of the league’s smallest warriors, has reignited public and league discourse on the viability of small guards: is Brunson the exception, the only small guard capable of leading a team to a championship? Was Brunson even the most impactful Knicks player over the course of this run? Should teams search for the next Brunson? Is there even a next Brunson?

Such broad, archetypal NBA analysis will always be limited. Consigning a group of players, not classified by style or impact but merely anthros and positionality, to NBA purgatory is an inherently flawed concept. It’s why I’ve been confounded by the recent public doubt about small guards. This lack (and subsequent revival) of confidence in small guards is based on an oscillating perception of a handful of stylistically disparate players. As Luc mentioned, just 15 players shorter than 6’1 logged 750+ minutes last NBA season. The focus of fans and the media on the broad umbrella of small guards overlooks the nuance and richness of different players’ footprints on this beautiful game. Impact should be analyzed with specificity, on a case-by-case basis. 

Modern basketball positionality is best thought of as a spectrum, with cognition+perimeter skill on one end and physicality on the other. Though they aren’t independent of each other–it takes a certain level of spatial processing and awareness to actualize physical tools into functional impact–there’s still a general tradeoff present between the two sides among most players. As players ascend the positional spectrum, more physicality is required, and vice versa with cognition and perimeter skill. 

This brings me to the main concept of this article: small guards can still be viable at the NBA level; they simply have to find ways to mitigate their anthropometric weakness through functional traits. These players, like Tyler Tanner, can escape small guard purgatory (shoutout @100guaranteed for the apt term) by combining real guard-level cognition and skill with the physicality of a bigger player. Production in physically arduous areas (OREB%, DREB%, 2P%, FTR, dunks) despite a vertical disadvantage is crucial because it indicates three things: 1. future, impact-conducive production in these areas; 2. outlier physicality that can be applied to other aspects of the sport (for instance, as a defender vs. mismatch-hunting); and 3. general greater spatial awareness and processing. It takes special ball-tracking and hand-eye coordination for a player who’s 6-foot and below to compete as a rebounder against much larger players. In his latest piece, the brilliant @NileHoops touched on this idea while analyzing Jarred Vanderbilt’s outlier rebounding for his height/weight.

Speaking of a sub-6-footer with special ball-tracking and hand-eye coordination who competes as a rebounder against much larger players, soon-to-be sophomore Virginia guard Chance Mallory stands at 5 ’10 and 186 pounds (!!!). Despite his frame (and maybe because of it too?), I believe he will be a real NBA contributor in the next five years.

Many of the Virginia guard’s strengths parallel Tanner’s, namely his supreme cognition manifested in two-way turnover battle dominance and sustained playmaking impact. Mallory sported a pristine 3.0 A/TO on real usage (~20 USG% and 24 AST%), as well as an eye-popping 4.0 STL%.

The steal rate is especially impressive given the poor 2025-26 UVA dTOV ecosystem, as the Cavaliers were 257th in opponent TO% in the nation! Mallory’s defensive intelligence and activity are remarkable. Watch the ground he covers over the course of this possession against NC State, culminating in a steal:

Mallory’s passing, despite not being rim-heavy (just 37% of his assists were rim assists), had a massive bearing on UVA’s 2pt and rim scoring this past season. Every UVA rotation regular (min% >40) except Johann Grunloh shot significantly better from 2 and at the rim with Mallory on the court this season. It’s also worth noting that out of these regulars, every player except Sam Lewis was substantially more assisted at the rim with Mallory on the court. Mallory’s ability to effectively take on some of the initiation and creation burden made his teammates better 2pt scorers, as he created opportunities for his team to attack tilted defenses.

Mallory had a bevy of impressive passes this season, but my mind has replayed one especially astute dump-off pass versus Louisville, over and over and over again.

The play begins with Johann Grunloh slipping a ball screen for Mallory at the top of the key. Louisville big Sananda Fru does a good job initially recovering from a high drop to a rolling Grunloh. Meanwhile, Mallory cleverly creates space for himself: after his first dribble, Mallory hesitates, causing his defender, Ryan Conwell, to freeze behind him, creating more separation on his drive to the rim. Mallory’s change of pace has all but freed him from Conwell’s point-of-attack defense. Poised to exploit the 2-on-1 advantage he and Grunloh now field against Fru, Mallory begins his gather just outside the restricted area. Just as he’s gathering, the trailing Conwell makes a last-ditch effort to poke the ball free from Mallory’s clutches. Conwell’s poke disrupts Mallory’s gather, causing him to slightly bobble the ball as he begins his takeoff. Mallory’s rhythm is disrupted, and he finds himself midair, smothered by Fru, with basically no angle to finish at the rim. To make matters worse, because of the angle he jumped at, he is no longer facing Grunloh. Mallory seems to be out of options. 

What’s next is pure Mallory Magic: while he’s midair, knowing Grunloh is still lingering behind him, Mallory uses incredible core strength to contort around Fru, pitching the ball to Grunloh just before his feet touch the ground. Mallory’s gifts as a court mapper shone with as incredible a pass as I saw all NCAA season.

It’s been established that both Tanner and Mallory excel as playmakers and off-ball defenders. But where our two favorite small guards differ is in how they ‘simulate size.’ Luc explained how Tanner’s vertical athleticism, represented by his atypical blk%, dunks, and dreb%, should ease many of the zeitgeist’s qualms with his stature. Mallory simulates size too, in his own way. He isn’t the vertical athlete that Tanner is, but he has found ways to leverage his own most unique anthropometric trait: his weight. I led with Mallory’s measurements for a reason: he’s built like a tank. Pairing a low center of gravity with substantial mass and elite spatial processing and awareness leads to an unfathomable rebounding and contact-creation footprint for a supposedly small guard–Mallory notched a 4.4 ORB%, a 12.5 DRB%, and a 55.6 FTR in his freshman year! It cannot be overstated how noteworthy these marks are. A 5’10 guard should not be able to produce like this in high-major basketball.

Mallory had a particularly impressive sequence featuring astounding ball-tracking against Dayton in early December. Mallory, faced with a quasi-switch from Dayton’s big, is able to generate a closeout opportunity for a lifting Dallin Hall, and upon stopping short on his foray to the basket, Hall finds an open Thijs de Ridder in the opposite corner. You might think Mallory’s job is finished in this offensive possession; his first-action creation and gravity led to an open, high-value shot for his teammate. It would be in the best interest of practically every other player his size on the planet to get back on defense here: what more could such a small player do to contribute here? Instead (you could probably sense this coming), Mallory slowly creeps in for the offensive rebound. He times his jump perfectly, somehow winning an aerial duel against 6’6 Dayton guard Keonte Jones, snatching the ball away at the apex of his leap. Then Mallory has the wherewithal to find Hall again, who makes the kickout to Jacari White for a wide-open three. Mallory’s offensive rebounding is a surefire indicator of his unique blend of spatial processing and physicality. While UVA head coach Ryan Odom’s aggressive glass-crashing scheme certainly enhanced Mallory’s offensive rebounding production, his strong AAU priors as a rebounder lead me to believe that his outlier OREB% is not at all system-made. (On the 2023 Under Armor Circuit, Mallory had the second-most total rebounds for a strong Team Thrill, only trailing now-Pelicans forward Derik Queen.)

It’s hard to find historical analogs for Mallory because his profile is so contradictory. How many NCAA players have ever had such a sharply tuned shot diet (48.7 3PR/55.6 FTR and a 2.3 rim:non-rim ratio with guard-level unassistedness!) and robust passing+TOV aversion, while sustaining wing-adjacent offensive rebounding and legitimate havoc creation defensively? When factoring in age and conference, the list is very, very short.

Mallory is seemingly way out of his depth in this query. Yes, Mallory is significantly shorter than his stylistic peers. His lack of verticality is further reflected in his dunks #. I would be whatever the superlative of shocked is if he even dunks the ball once before he leaves college; meanwhile, Pippen, Smart, and Harden all compiled 20+ dunks over their respective NCAA careers. And the NBA trio had all handled nucleus-level usage by Mallory’s age. So what gives?

Even when accounting for the A/TO inflation that’s taken place over the course of the Bart era, Mallory’s turnover aversion is still significantly ahead of the field. Mallory shares a skill intersection with the 21st century’s (arguably) most formative player, one of the decade’s best ancillary talents, and a real rotation guard, while potentially boasting better cognition than all three of them.

My understanding of the term cognition, largely informed by the great work of @100guaranteed, is that it encompasses all forms of functional processing by a player. Any read/decision/action can technically be deciphered as an indicator of a player’s cognition; however, the most iron-clad empirical measures of cognition are heavily associated with guardness (as my positionality spiel entailed). This makes sense: guards have by far the largest processing burden.

 
Both Tanner and Mallory share a special intersection of cognition (manifested in STL%, AST%, and A/TO) and shooting talent in their profiles. When parsing for these qualities, and adjusting for age + conference, we are left with this intriguing list of NCAA seasons:

Why hasn’t Reed Sheppard been able to calcify his ostensible NCAA feel (2.2 A/TO & 4.6 STL%) into NBA-level TOV influence, while the even smaller Fred VanVleet has been dominant in those 2 factors for the better part of a decade?

With just one (ethical!) added filter, we can find Mallory isolated with two of the league’s foremost cognitive talents (VanVleet and Tyrese Haliburton):

Offensive rebounding appears to be another indicator of cognition for guards already sustaining playmaking loads and general perimeter responsibilities.  Offensive rebounding production represents both a baseline level of physicality and a nuanced understanding of space, as well as adept ball-tracking skills.

How these traits shaped the stylistic development of Fred VanVleet fascinates me. VanVleet is particularly relevant when discussing Mallory due to their similar skill intersections and measurements.

My hypothesis is that VanVleet’s acute spatial understanding has allowed him to make dramatic improvements as a volume pull-up 3pt shooter, as he’s able to process and recognize open shooting windows out of pick-and-roll situations extremely quickly. VanVleet’s pullup shooting results in his greatest value-add–his comically unbalanced, pullup 3-heavy shot diet has allowed him to wield some of the sport’s most robust offensive turnover suppression. I suspect that such a dramatic offensive adaptation from the college iterations of his scoring process has been enabled by VanVleet’s advanced cognitive abilities. (Perhaps a similar cognitive trait is responsible for James Harden’s development into one of the greatest pullup shooters the sport has ever seen.) And despite very poor length (just a +2 WS), VanVleet has continued to force defensive turnovers in the league. The same spatial processing and ball-tracking that helped an anthropometrically lacking VanVleet post a 4.4 OREB% in his junior year continues to power his +1.2 dTOV impact (by 6-factor 4y RAPM). 

FVV’s weight and overall engagement have helped him reach neutral+ dTS influence; I believe Mallory can attain mostly similar outcomes if and when given the opportunity on basketball’s biggest stage.

Similar to FVV’s pullup-3 chucking (chucking being used in the most non-derogatory way possible), Haliburton’s exceptional spatial awareness has shown at the NBA level through his own superpower: risk-averse rim passing.

The intersection Mallory shares with these two cognitive basketball greats is extremely powerful: why can’t Mallory develop his own cognitively-linked superpower?

For all of the reasons outlined above, Mallory is likely my favorite long-term basketball prospect on the planet. But he certainly does not come without his flaws. 

The biggest caveat to the Mallory profile is that he is old. You might have caught on to this by noticing I’ve only used U21 and non-senior class/age qualifiers in the queries above. Born in October 2005, Mallory is over a year older than the bulk of his rising sophomore peers. He’s a whopping five months older than Tanner! Age vs production is the paradigm for any and all predictive analysis; Mallory’s significant freshman year production would signal a much higher upside if he were true freshman age. 

My other consequential concern revolves around Mallory’s usage: his impressive two-way profile hasn’t been sufficiently stress-tested. When compared to similarly skilled and productive NBA success stories, Mallory almost always lags behind in either usage or playmaking load. Mallory’s ancillary production was special last season, don’t get me wrong. But producing on the margins while managing 20 USG% and 24 AST% is a completely different thing than maintaining that production on 26 USG% and 28 AST%. The stamina required to sustain ancillary production with a usage bump is insane. The capacity to do so implies even greater ancillary capabilities when scaled down (as almost everyone is in the NBA). This is why Tyler Tanner is so special! Fred VanVleet’s junior season likely belongs on the Mount Rushmore of upperclassmen seasons in the Bart era because of how he was able to soak up usage and simultaneously dominate the margins. Junior year FVV had an era-adjusted 3.7 A/TO on 35 AST%, while forcing defensive turnovers and rebounding on both ends. (Every single time I read over his profile, it becomes even more incomprehensible that he was undrafted.) Accepting such a creation load also usually harms prospects’ shot diet: 3s are a lot harder to create off the bounce vs when spotting up.

Luc clearly outlined what Tanner’s path to NBA impact is: two-way turnover margin dominance. Mallory’s is likely something similar. It’s only fitting that our two favorite small guards fit neatly into a query alongside the NBA king of this mold.

Tanner’s vertical athleticism, shown in dunks, blocks, and 2pt scoring, and superb feel/shooting/physicality indicators explain why many of Draft Twitter’s sharpest analysts are exceedingly high on him (to the dismay of seemingly everyone else). VanVleet’s uniqueness is also spotlighted through this format–his playmaking and turnover aversion should catch your eye. I’m eagerly waiting for Mallory to find a way to distinguish himself from these two titanic statistical profiles. (He might very well be a usage leap away from FVV regen status.)

I feel cautiously optimistic about Mallory’s ability to scale up. Upon the exodus of Virginia’s super-senior guards, Mallory seems poised to take over the starting point guard role next season. His PNR shot diet was encouraging: a .36 3PR/.53 FTR (!!!) scoring process is hopefully a sign of things to come as Mallory’s PNR volume will likely increase next year. Mallory’s contact creation is so vital for his scoring outlook; his FTR dramatically raises his scoring floor, especially given how poor of a 2P scorer he is and projects to be at the next level. There, the anthros are hard to overcome, especially if he continues to operate as a ‘finisher to draw fouls’. (It’s worth noting that in that 2023 Under Armor Circuit sample, Mallory was actually more efficient than the foot-taller Queen on 2s. In 16 games for Team Thrill, Mallory shot 66.2% inside the arc, but with just a .22 FTR.) 

It will be important to monitor how Mallory’s shot diet changes as his creation load presumably rises. His staggering rim:non-rim ratio makes a lot of sense considering his affinity for contact, and also is likely a function of his profile not being stress/usage-tested. Unlike similarly skilled guards, Mallory has not yet been forced to explore non-rim options at this stage of his NCAA career. That might very well change next season.  Mallory’s touch is also better than the indicators from his lone college season would have you believe. He doesn’t have the touch of a 77 FT% shooter. Over considerable pre-NCAA samples, Mallory shot 84% from the line! When factoring in his relatively poor display this season, the total sample still comes out to around 81%. I am confident he will have a better shooting campaign after a mildly disappointing shotmaking year as a freshman.

Basketball is a game featuring some of the largest humans on the planet, and there will always be extremely functional advantages that come with height. Yes, the long-term professional basketball outlooks of both Tanner and Mallory would undoubtedly be more favorable if they were taller. But despite Mallory’s height, his nexus of traits and production is rare enough to bet on, even though the rampant heightism of NBA front offices will probably keep him from an NBA court for at least a couple of years.

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

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

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

Tre Johnson (Washington Wizards)

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

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

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

Will Riley (Washington Wizards)

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

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

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

Liam McNeeley (Charlotte Hornets)

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

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

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

Chaz Lanier (Detroit Pistons)

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

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

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

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

Egor Dёmin (Brooklyn Nets)

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

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

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

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

Joan Beringer (Minnesota Timberwolves)

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

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

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

Adou Thiero (Los Angeles Lakers)

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

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

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

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

Noah Penda (Orlando Magic)

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

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

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

Cedric Coward (Memphis Grizzlies)

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

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

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

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

Khaman Maluach (Phoenix Suns)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oklahoma City Thunder

Rookies: Bennett Stirtz, Aday Mara

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

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

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

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

San Antonio Spurs

Rookies: Tarris Reed Jr., Jayden Quaintance

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

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

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

Los Angeles Lakers

Rookies: Cameron Carr

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

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

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

Golden State Warriors

Rookies: Yaxel Lendeborg

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

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

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

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

Atlanta Hawks

Rookies: Zuby Ejiofor, Kingston Flemings

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

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

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

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

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

Philadelphia 76ers

Rookies: Labaron Philon Jr.

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

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

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

Toronto Raptors

Rookies: Allen Graves

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

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

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

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

Charlotte Hornets

Rookies: Christian Anderson, Hannes Steinbach

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

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

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

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

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

Washington Wizards

Rookies: AJ Dybantsa

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

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

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

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

Utah Jazz

Rookies: Darryn Peterson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atlanta Hawks: Kingston Flemings’ rim finishing

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

Boston Celtics: Chris Cenac’s shot diet

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

Brooklyn Nets: Mikel Brown ancillary production

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

Charlotte Hornets: Hannes Steinbach’s passing

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

Chicago Bulls: Caleb Wilson’s defensive impact

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

Cleveland Cavaliers: Meleek Thomas’ inside the arc scoring

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

Dallas Mavericks: Morez Johnson’s scoring burden

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

Denver Nuggets: Trevon Brazile’s continued feel progression

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

Detroit Pistons: Ebuka Okorie’s passing role

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

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

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

Houston Rockets: Bruce Thornton’s rim pressure

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

Indiana Pacers: Braden Smith’s physical presence

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

Los Angeles Clippers: Keaton Wagler, offensive focal point

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

Los Angeles Lakers: Cameron Carr’s passing

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

Memphis Grizzlies: Cameron Boozer, proven winner

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

Miami Heat: What kind of guard is Ryan Conwell?

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

Milwaukee Bucks: Brayden Burries showing us the special

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

Minnesota Timberwolves: Isaiah Evans’ rim protection

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

New Orleans Pelicans: Kobe Bufkin, reclamation project

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

New York Knicks: Tyler Nickel’s defense

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

Oklahoma City Thunder: Aday Mara and Bennett Stirtz synergy

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

Orlando Magic: Izaiyah Nelson’s physicality

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

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

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

Phoenix Suns: Koa Peat’s playmaking

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

Portland Trail Blazers: Yang Hansen, post operator

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

Sacramento Kings: Darius Acuff’s defense

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

San Antonio Spurs: Tarris Reed’s passing

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

Toronto Raptors: The Toronto Wrecking Balls

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

Utah Jazz: Darryn Peterson passing

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

Washington Wizards: AJ Dybantsa’s on-ball scaling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pass: Nate Ament (Wing/Forward, Tennessee)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft: Ebuka Okorie (Guard, Stanford)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pass: Bennett Stirtz (Guard, Iowa)

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

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

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

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

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

Draft: Yaxel Lendeborg (Forward/Big, Michigan)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pass: Aday Mara (Big, Michigan)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.