2025 NBA Draft Guide

Dylan Harper came out of the gates this year as one of the NCAA’s best 18-year-old scorers of all time. At the end of 2024, he was the NCAA’s first top 3 scorer not yet turned 19 since Michael Beasley in 2008 before being sidelined by a mid-season illness which caused him to drop nine pounds. Harper does most of his work getting downhill, one of the best driving prospects in recent memory with a nimble handle and feathery touch for his physical 6’6’’ (in shoes) frame. He shot a difficult-to-believe 70% at the rim on 170 attempts, with fewer than one in five assisted. For a young freshman, we’re in rarified air.

Harper scored well at the NBA Combine, with 90th percentile or better ranks for height, wingspan and hand length compared to point guards historically. He even was near or above average for a point guard for vertical, sprint, agility and shuttle runs. Harper’s a bigger body than we’re used to seeing move like that.

Harper has a wide repertoire of driving and finishing tools and technique, not simply overpowering less athletic opponents. He splits doubles with ease and is able to decelerate just enough to let his defender blow by. He finishes with teardrops and scoops, nearly as proficient with his off hand as his left.

The rest of Harper’s offense is less inspiring, but still has a lot to work with. His pull-up was a negative, in the 95th percentile for volume but a below average efficiency at 0.76 points per attempt. That will not cut it in the NBA, and does reduce some of Harper’s on-ball appeal as opponents may wall off his driving lanes. However, that is balanced against Harper’s strong catch and shoot results, very good passing and just general creativity finding ways through even conservative defensive schemes. He will not light the world on fire with his distributing prowess, but Harper is capable of some very difficult reads which makes him difficult to help onto.

When his three is falling, Harper is an offense unto himself. He would be a particularly good pairing with a big spacer, as his rim finishing took off when Rutgers’ lone non-shooter was on the bench. The defense is good enough, especially for the archetype, and given his size and above average tools will be able to conserve energy the way other high usage point guards cannot. He is Swish Theory’s clear #2 prospect. There may be some growing pains as San Antonio figures out their spacing, but he is well worth the long-run upside.

Matt Powers

Collin Murray-Boyles has been one of the more mercurial prospects in this class—an undersized player with a seemingly anachronistic playstyle. Given that, the trepidation surrounding his potential high draft selection is certainly reasonable. He sports a paltry three-point attempt rate for a wing-sized player and an arguably more concerning blocked field goal attempt rate of 8%, which would be tied for the highest of any player drafted in the past five lotteries.

However unconventional Murray-Boyles’ skillset may be, his impact is undeniable. Despite South Carolina’s struggles this year, there may not have been a player who carried a heavier two-way burden. According to Databallr, Murray-Boyles ranked in the 100th percentile in rim frequency on offense and the 91st percentile on defense. His on-off rim accuracy was similarly elite: 98th percentile offensively and 96th percentile defensively. This level of impact at the rim was evident in both of his seasons at South Carolina.

While it took CMB time to acclimate to a drastic shift in usage this season—as he transitioned from a complementary piece to a featured offensive option—he consistently elevated his play as the year progressed. By the end of a rigorous conference schedule, Murray-Boyles had put together one of the more dominant stretches of play in the country, especially considering the caliber of competition and the lack of support around him.

Admittedly, South Carolina was a subpar offensive team overall; in fact, all evidence suggests they were historically inept by Power Conference standards without Murray-Boyles on the court. One of the most impressive aspects of his game—something traditional stats fail to capture—is how translatable his specific style of facilitation is. As previously mentioned, Murray-Boyles is a relentless and potent driver, consistently collapsing defenses and kicking out to generate wide-open threes. Unfortunately, South Carolina lacked the perimeter shooting talent to capitalize, finishing 289th nationally in three-point percentage.

Eventually, the coaching staff recognized that their best hope for a competent offense was to abandon their traditional two-big lineups and instead space the floor to optimize Murray-Boyles’ driving opportunities. The results spoke for themselves, producing the team’s best offensive performances of the season and keeping them competitive with the eventual National Champion Florida Gators.

In the end, while Collin Murray-Boyles doesn’t possess the conventional skill set of a two-way star, I’m as confident in his ability to return top-five value as I am in any non-Cooper Flagg prospect in this class.

Ahmed Jama

VJ Edgecombe is one of the more perplexing star bets in this class. On one hand, his athletic tools and productivity scream future all-star. On the other hand, his strengths and weaknesses mesh in ways that leave me scratching my head.

Edgecombe is an all-world athlete. 33 dunks with 3.8% and 2.3% steal and block rates is a terrorizing stat profile, especially when you consider that he’s only 6’5” 193 lbs. I expect Edgecombe to be an uber-impactful guard defender in his prime. Maybe he isn’t the bulkiest or longest player in the world (6’7.5” wingspan), but his motor, ground coverage, and quick hands make him a potential lockdown perimeter weapon. There’s a train of thought that Edgecombe’s defensive impact will be limited by his pedestrian (by basketball player standards) physical measurables, but hyper-energetic guard defenders can impact the game at the highest of levels. Just look at Alex Caruso, Derrick White, Jrue Holiday, and Cason Wallace. Edgecombe could be the rare guard defender that can genuinely slide up and down the line-up and wreak havoc.

Offensively is where the puzzle pieces become a bit wonkier to fit into place. He’s an explosive first step athlete that struggles to generate deep paint touches off the bounce. This is a result of his poor handle. Edgecombe has some tantalizing movement skills, able to explode by defenders and change directions on a dime – there’s just times where the ball doesn’t come with him. This compounds with his lack of finishing craft, as Edgecombe is often forced to pick the ball up early and hoist up awkward contested leaners. He shot just 47.8% on non-dunk rim attempts. If he were built like a power wing these issues would be less concerning, but given that he is more in the mold of a guard, I have concerns about his ceiling as a creator.

Fortunately, I believe that he can provide value in other ways. Edgecombe will thrive in a fast-paced environment with other creators where he can run in transition, hit catch-and-shoot threes, and attack the rim against a tilted defense. While he doesn’t yet flow from dribble to pull-up efficiently, he got up 8.7 3PA/100 and finished a workable 33.6% of his threes and 77.9% of his free throws.

Put it all together and Edgecombe’s evaluation is far from straight forward. He’ll be a top pick and there’s a chance his offensive output disappoints fans. However, there’s a world where he develops that handle and builds on his moments of pace control and change-of-direction ability. But even if he doesn’t reach those lofty outcomes, Edgecombe can still return high/mid lottery value as a glue guard that makes open shots and locks in on D.

Will Morris

In his one and only season as a Duke Blue Devil, playing off the monstrous Cooper Flagg and rim presence of Khaman Maluach, Kon Knueppel shot 63% on shots near the rim, 41% on long twos, 41% on threes, and 91% at the line. Have your eyes widened yet?

This is the Kon Knueppel promise, that he, despite some athletic concerns we’ll soon get into, will juice an NBA offense by being efficient from every area of the court. There’s no doubt he’ll bang catch-and-shoot threes as long as defenses will let him, that he has the polish to punish aggressive closeouts with passing and a savvy driving game from day one.

You’ll see Knueppel constantly and almost stubbornly, at times, get to two feet in the paint. Here, against a scrambling defense, he finds himself in a 2-on-1 scenario and gestures toward a dump-off pass to his teammate on the block. One deft pivot and panicked defender later, and he’s at the rim for two:

Despite standing at just 6’5” with a clear lack of wiggle and a lane agility time to match Ryan Kalkbrenner, Knueppel has the sort of mature driving game that every coach dreams of. His poor drives don’t result in turnovers or terrible shots, but resets and kickouts. On a team with frequent off-ball movers, he’ll be able to find cutters rather than taking wild shots; at worst, he’s going to take some ten-foot fadeaways that he can certainly make.

The question, other than how well he can fly around the perimeter and defense and/or stick with shiftier attackers, is how much usage he can really eat up. While he was the perfect secondary option at Duke, some dominant EYBL stats suggest at least a modicum of primary potential, and thus, that scalability every NBA team is chasing. Over three seasons on the best AAU circuit in the nation, he shot 50/40/87 on nearly 20 FGAs a game; his assist:turnover numbers and free-throw rate weren’t as high as they’d be at Duke, but as a varied bucket-getter who’d post-up opponents, look for cutting opportunities, and simply get in his isolation bag, those are promising numbers.

Does a play like this sway you?

Do you worry more that he couldn’t create space from a decent switch-big in Grant Nelson, or are you more impressed by the pass Knueppel ultimately uses to create an open two for a teammate? Could the undeniable intersection of shooting touch, feel, and ultra-competitiveness portend true offensive stardom, or is Knueppel just a slow-footed shooter who will be a fine rotation player, and not much more? Whatever lottery team selects him is betting on the former.

Lucas Kaplan

Few if any 2025 prospects bring strengths as strong and weaknesses as weak as Khaman Maluach. He’s a towering, nearly 7-foot-1 in socks center with a class-leading 7-foot-7 wingspan, which instantly places him in the top 10 longest arms in the NBA. Maluach blends that length with special finishing touch, converting 84% of his half-court rim attempts, pacing the class by over seven percentage points.

Beyond powering in easy dunks, Maluach feathers in layups like few true centers can. He converted an efficient 67.9% of his half-court layups, exhibiting the coordination and soft touch to finish passes from all angles. Even when lob passes fall off target, Maluach effortlessly redirects the ball into the cylinder.

At the moment, Maluach’s lack of passing balances out his rim-scoring greatness, limiting him to a play-finishing only role. His 4.3% assist rate is the second-lowest of any player in the draft, casting doubt on his passing projection. Shaky floor processing and spatial awareness limit Maluach’s ability to punish double teams and could hurt him more with worse teammates around him.

Those feel for the game limitations pop up on defense, where Maluach often reads the game a few beats too slowly. His tools often facilitate great recoveries, but his feel and mediocre short-area quickness can help explain his paltry 0.6% steal rate (the lowest in the class), though Duke’s scheme possibly depressed his turnover creation.

Duke head coach Jon Scheyer tasked Maluach with frequent switching, blitzing and hedging on the perimeter, stretching his defense beyond his limit. Though Maluach often struggled in space, he flashed singular movement skills covering big spaces for his size, suggesting huge upside as a defensive roamer.

He’s a good-not-great shot blocker, posting a solid 6.8% block rate, ranking third of the six seven-footers in the class. Maluach’s primary interior defensive value add comes from rim deterrence — offenses routinely avoided shooting when he parked in the paint.

Maluach’s physicality on both ends of the floor will swing his NBA projection. Stocky, burlier big men routinely knocked Maluach from his spot, pushing him aside to snare rebounds and carve low-post position. Teenage bigs often struggle to initiate and absorb contact, but it’s a critical skill for paint-based centers to develop.

Some scouts lean on Maluach’s touch indicators and modest pre-NCAA shotmaking flashes to project outside shooting and perimeter growth. He won’t need that to develop into a high-impact, winning big man next to elite interior passers and versatile, rangy defenders.

It’s reasonable to question the playoff viability of centers with significant limitations regarding lateral mobility, passing or physicality. At some point, Maluach’s youth, production and physical tools are worth betting on. Maybe he can break out of the shackles of his projected, narrow role, blossoming into something unforeseen. Many stars take that path, after all.

Ben Pfeifer

Out of all my player evaluations during the 2025 NBA Draft cycle, none have proven tougher than Derik Queen. On one hand, it’s very easy to write him off. With below-average length, a terrible max vertical, and poor agility testing at the NBA Draft Combine, Queen logged a historically bad 5.8 Combine Score per Nick Kalinowski. Few first-round picks have ever tested so poorly, and it often shows up on the court defensively. Pair this with a questionable shooting projection (20% 3PT on 1.8 attempts per 100 possessions) and you potentially have one of the worst archetypes in modern-day basketball: a non-shooting, non-defending big. But this lens is reductive of what makes Queen special.

Queen produced one of the greatest inside-the-arc self-creating big man seasons in modern NCAA history, powered by historically (yes, historically) good driving. Per Synergy, he logged a 26.8% drive rate and scored 0.98 points per possession on 158 driving possessions. He scored efficiently, drew a ton of fouls, and rarely turned the ball over despite handling at a massive volume, resulting in an all-time-great driving profile. For reference, Julius Randle and Paolo Banchero are really the only comparable 6’9”+ drivers in the Synergy era. Randle posted a 24.5% drive rate on 0.89 points per possession, and though Paolo posted a 29.0% drive rate, he scored just 0.78 points per possession. Queen bests both when integrating volume and efficiency, and he wins on drives by blending strength with impressive changes of direction, deceleration, and touch.

Queen largely uses his tools to get to the rim, but he has an advanced midrange game that serves as a counter. His coordination and clean energy transfer from dribble to shot allow him to get pullup twos and floaters off in a variety of situations. The result is an 80.9% unassisted rate on 133 non-rim two attempts. Only seven 6’9+ freshman logged 100+ midrange attempts with a 75% unassisted rate: Paolo Banchero, Julius Randle, Brandon Ingram, GG Jackson, Jaden McDaniels, Naz Reid, and Derik Queen. Only Ingram and Jackson surpassed his unassisted rate, essentially meaning no freshman big in modern NCAA history was a better midrange self-creator than Queen. Queen did play his freshman year at a true sophomore age. But when his inside-the-arc self-creation is so historically good, that datapoint becomes slightly less relevant.

For as good an interior scorer as Queen is, though, he’s an inversely terrible defender. His absence of rim protection as a center pigeonholes him at the power forward position, where his poor footspeed is spotlighted and renders him a complete negative on defense. As a defensively harmful power forward, it’s vital that he stretches the floor well to recoup as much offensive value as possible. He didn’t shoot many threes last season and didn’t efficiently convert the ones he did take, but he possesses excellent touch and energy transfer as exhibited in his pullup twos and floaters. Among all the players in the midrange query above, Queen is 1st in FT% (76.6%), and all but Randle have become consistent floor spacers in the NBA. Even Randle has hovered at 35% 3PT on ~8 3PA/100 for the past five seasons, an outcome that would still net Queen soft closeouts to attack off the catch. All in all, I buy Queen’s shot to be at least passable.

How you rank Queen is ultimately a reflection of your own evaluatory philosophies. I personally build boards with a strong emphasis on my perception of a prospect’s median outcome. Given Queen’s integration of poor defense, a non-elite shooting projection, and sophomore age, I cannot rank him any higher than 8th. But if I’m a team in the mid-to-late lottery range with strong defensive insulation and a weak offense (hint hint: Washington Wizards, Portland Trail Blazers), I don’t see a more tantalizing swing than Baltimore’s very own.

Maurya Kumpatla

Tre Johnson just posted one of the best shooting seasons any prospect has shown in years.
40% 3P% , 38% on 99 Pull-Up 3PA, 41% on 135 C&S 3PA, 42% on 77 Guarded C&S 3PA
52% FG% on 48 Off Screen jump shots, 55% on 31 Off Screen 3PA, 44% Transition 3P%

His shot profile is as efficient and versatile as they come, but the potential doesn’t stop at shooting.
Tre rates 4th in 3pt shooting, 12th in scoring, and 17th in passing, via Cerebro Sports rankings of NCAA players in the draft.

Tre’s handle is tight enough to help him get to his spots and create any perimeter shot he wants, which he usually can make with his impeccable shooting touch. His impressive feel when defenses send help has shown promising playmaking skills to create for others off of the scoring gravity he brings. This combination could culminate into a lethal scorer with sound passing chops as a primary scoring creator option, a true offensive engine powering an offense.

If your NBA offense is in desperate need of spacing, adding Tre Johnson’s shooting gravity will taste like an ice cold lemonade on a hot day. There is no better shooting prospect in the draft, and between Tre’s scoring versatility + shooting gravity, Johnson could be one of the most bankable offensive options for years to come.

Finishing at the rim is a concern for Tre that he’ll have to develop to build out his all-around scoring profile. With the incredible touch Johnson shows on his jumper, one would think the soft touch indicators are there to improve finishing at the rim, where maybe working on body control on drives for more comfortable angles could help.

How will Tre’s defense look at the next level? That is the biggest question that could define his impact as a full-time starter. If his team can’t cover him up defensively, and if he can’t hold his own at any position, playing time will prove difficult. Team evaluators must decide if Tre’s offensive upside is worth the swing; if the shooting + scoring creator gravity is elite, an offensive star’s impact can outweigh negative defense, and the right mix of flanking defenders for two-way floor balance can weigh things more evenly come playoff time.

Ryan Kaminski

If I was a Noa truther, I would boil his case down to 3 components: production, age, and tools. I’d argue that there’s nothing more useful in prospect evaluation than these components. After all, precocious production has been the most indicative star upside proxy that we’ve ever seen, and the false positives nearly always offer some combination of poor feel and awful athletic tools.

Few come close to Noa’s precocious production in the FIBA U18 European championships. Amongst players under the age of 17, Noa’s net rating ranked 1st and his PER ranked 3rd. The 5 players around him – Ricky Rubio, Furkan Korkmaz, Enes Freedom, Dragan Bender and Alex Len – were all NBAers. 

Across two years, he put up the following stat line: 62% true shooting, 11% offensive rebounding rate, 23% defensive rebounding rate, 15% assist rate, 10% turnover rate, 3.1% steal rate, 2.4% block rate, 27% usage rate.

This is important because it shows what Noa could potentially do with higher usage. Noa hit 33.5 PER + 40.1 NET, but it’s especially notable how strong his rebound-assist-stock integration was. On a relatively large usage, Noa was a reasonably good passer and strongly avoided TOs. He was highly efficient, and still was able to put up a monster 3.1% steal rate. This is as close to ideal as you could expect for a high-usage scorer, and it was across a solid 14-game sample size in a high-level competition.

Noa has continued his production in the German BBL league, producing for one of the best EuroCup teams this year. 18.5 PER and 62% TS is quite good, but it’s his combination of monster free throw rate (0.7) and turnover avoidance (1.1 A:TO + 11% TO) that has many claiming star upside. Noa’s 70% rim finishing and 70 FTR indicate strong applied use of tools, but it should be noted how good his tools really are. Standing 6’11 barefoot with a 35-inch max vert and 10.6 lane agility, Noa is long, agile, and can jump with the best of them.

So to be clear, Noa is probably the best athlete over 6’10 amongst serious prospects. In a 14-game sample vs U18 comp, he put up one of the best PER and net ratings that we’ve seen through efficient scoring, TO avoidance, and great stocks. He also happens to not turn 18 until December. What’s not to love about this intersection of age, production, tools, and feel?

Notice how we haven’t talked about what Noa actually does on the court. Turns out, his role isn’t particularly complex. Nearly 60% of his scoring possessions come in three ways: spotups, cuts, and transition scoring. 

There’s no denying that he is a ridiculous transition scorer. He draws a foul on 33% of his attempts in transition, good for a berserk 1.04 FTR. He is taking more than a FT per FGA attempted. These are heights I can’t recall anyone reaching at this type of volume. He does not shy from contact at all, despite being one of the skinniest players in the draft. He shifts his momentum right into defenders’ bodies without any hesitation, and he gives no time for opposing bigs to prep for the contest.

Still, he just doesn’t have midrange counter. He doesn’t take many runners or pullup 2s, and pretty much every basket is at the rim. How good of a shooter can Noa be? I’m somewhat optimistic for the 17 year old with 0.3 3PR, but his track record is devious at worst. At best, one can point to his rapid developmental momentum and strong FT% with feel to project continued shooting improvement

Another important question I have pertains to his defense. Noa should be somewhat switchable, and he has an entire highlight reel of pickpocketing passes into transition dunks. But for a dude with a 7 foot WS + 9 foot SR, a sub 3% block rate is pretty odd. This isn’t a one off either; Noa’s career FIBA U18 block rate was 3%. I would presume some of this has to do with his sinewy frame: his super low BMI and mediocre WS make it somewhat difficult to contest consistently. 

Perhaps this explains his fairly high foul rate too. As a near-seven footer with a 9’1 SR and remarkable 1 A:TO + 2% steal playing in the top German league, Noa offers indication of high feel for size. The high foul rate and lack of blocks dispute this high feel narrative, but especially coupled with film, I am optimistic that Noa has quicker reaction speed than most 17 year olds with his size.

This combination of infrequent driving, poor intermediate area counters, and lack of passing are historically difficult to overcome. He could be considered a tweener, in that he can score around the rim but isn’t large enough to play the 5 and not good enough of a shooter to score the 3. This is the ultimate Noa concern: he is trait-maxxed in that he has strong FTR, a:to, and elite production for age, but he doesn’t really have any standout skill in the HC. He’s a true tweener on O, and coupled with his inability to guard up with his physical/block deficiencies, I wonder how many minutes he can consistently play without meaningful shooting or physical development. 

Now, for a question I’m sure we’ve all thought of (or maybe it’s just me): could this guy actually be Giannis? 

For the optimist: one trait that underlied Giannis’s athleticism for size was his massive Achilles length. Giannis has a 13 inch long Achilles tendon, which is double the length of the average male. This length manifests in greater activation of explosive movement and acceleration.

While I doubt there is an official “Achilles tendon length” listing for Noa, it is clear on a singular watch of Noa that he has very long legs, and much of that length is centralized in the Achilles region. While it’s unclear whether he has quite as long Achilles tendons as Giannis, Noa’s open court acceleration and immense vert may be an indication that it’s close.

For the pessimist: Noa has a 7 foot WS. Giannis has a 7’4 WS. Enough said. Noa is similarly skinny to pre-draft Giannis, but that implies Noa would also have to match Giannis’ generational physical development, as he gained 50 pounds from pre-draft to his current listing. I guess it’s not completely out of the range of possibilities, but I don’t think Noa is ever reaching Giannis’ finishing or defensive goodness with mediocre length for size.

I struggle to rate Noa. He could very well be a modern tweener, with a lack of projectable skill in the HC, mediocre stock, and good height but lack of weight and length. But I do think the absolute dominance of Cooper Flagg has desensitized us from the absurdity of Noa’s production relative to age. And if his U18 Euro sample was any indication, Noa has a ceiling as an efficient creator with high feel on both ends. Strong precocious production with feel and elite athletic tools is theoretically a recipe for stardom. It’s unfair to call Noa a total mystery box, but it’s hard for me to project what he’ll be in the league. He’s definitely an NBA-caliber player, but he is one of the highest variance NBA prospects in recent memory.

Avinash Chauhan

The polarizing Ace Bailey holds one of the most uneven skill sets in recent draft memory. Standing at a wiry 6’8, the gap between the rarity of his skills and his effectiveness on the court in the present is wide – immensely talented as a shotmaker and blessed with special length and fluidity, yet unrefined in nearly all ancillary skills on the court. An empathetic eye would call Ace a victim of the bad habits that players can be nudged into when they’re astronomically better than everyone else their age for most of their career, but it’s clear that his success in the NBA will rely on his ability to round out the complementary aspects of his game.

Ace’s pitch as a top-5 pick is built on his scoring prowess – a truly rare midrange shotmaker in terms of shot versatility and ability to get a look over anyone mobile enough to stay with him. His flexibility and wide variety of bases that he’s comfortable firing from are rare, and stand as a potential foundation for an elite 2pt jump shooting arsenal. He took an astronomical 200 non-rim 2PAs last season, a number that not only speaks to not only his own skills, but also the dearth of viable creators around himself and Dylan Harper at Rutgers. Ace has never been an especially willing passer, and this trend continued last season with a paltry ratio of 1.3 assists to 14.7 FGA per game. His team was starved for high floor, usage soaking offense, so while Ace clearly fit the bill to fill that need, it’s likely that his team context only exacerbated the extreme nature of his shot profile and offensive process.

There are two key warning signs for Ace’s case as an elite self-creator. For a score-first and score-second prospect, his touch indicators (69% from the line and good-but-not-great jumpshot efficiency when accounting for shot difficulty) are somewhat underwhelming. Additionally, he fails to clear the very first threshold for elite scoring prospects – not enough easy buckets! With only a .24 free throw rate and almost 2x as many midrange attempts as rim attempts, the average degree of difficulty of his shot diet is a clear concern – getting downhill at a more consistent rate is a key improvement area for him. Without significant physical maturation or north/south handle development, it’s difficult to imagine Ace generating the meat and potatoes of an NBA superstar shot diet that are necessary to make his special shotmaking a complimentary skill, rather than all he offers. Still only 18 at the draft, I’m hesitant to rule out paradigm-shifting development for Ace, whether that be physical or mental improvements.

On the defensive end, Ace’s play-to-play impact once again lags behind his theoretical upside. His event creation numbers are strong (4.1% block rate, 1.7% steal rate) despite often still seeming a beat behind the play mentally, especially early on in his freshman season. Against the right matchups, his length and agility occasionally allow for him to overwhelm at the point of attack – even if his light frame and higher hips will allow sturdier wings to go through his chest at times. There’s clearly enough here to imagine a positive defender in the distant future, but there’s plenty of technical and physical development standing in the way of that for Bailey.
For a player with as wide of a range of outcomes as Ace, the variables key to his fate as an NBA player are unusually clear:

– unlearn the shot chucking habits that might’ve been advantageous for him and his team at lower levels, but won’t be in the NBA
– find a way to increase his volume of paint looks and free throws
– Continue to ramp up his volume and quality of movement as an off ball shooter

His success in these departments hinge largely on the team context he lands in, and the role he’s asked to play in his formative developmental years. It would be beneficial for all parties if Ace’s first NBA team prioritizes smoothing out the lumps in his all-around game, rather than further empowering the traits that worked for him at pre-NBA levels.

Oscar

Here’s an easy way to quantify Thomas Sorber’s impact on Georgetown’s defense: before suffering a season ending foot injury in February, opposing teams shot just 45.2% from inside the arc against the Hoyas (15th in the nation). In the few games after he was ruled out for the season, that number rose to 61.3% (358th in the nation). Sorber’s defensive impact as an 18/19 year old playing against high level DI athletes cannot be ignored.

Sorber is as polished a paint patroller as you’ll see, boasting excellent technique in drop and superb rotational awareness. He’s able to backpedal and track the ball effectively, especially for a big man with his youth. His combination of length and activity are unmatched by any big in this class. Sorber routinely positions himself well in the gaps and shifts to the rim in timely fashion to swat and alter shots. His 7.6% block rate, 2.7% steal rate, and 21.9% defensive rebounding rate are all indicative of his elite feel. He still needs to build some strength and he’s a bit limited vertically, but his 7’6” wingspan and positional wherewithal help him compensate.

Sorber’s feel for the game translates to the other end of the floor, where he posted a 15.6% assist rate. He throws the occasional errant pass, but his processing speed and court mapping lend themselves well to team offense. Whether operating from the post or facing-up and making a read on the move, Sorber is someone who keeps the ball moving and plays within the flow of the game.

I do worry some about how he puts the ball in the hoop. He recorded just 21 dunks this season, a measly total. While he has some enticing moments putting the ball on his floor and using his flexibility to finish at difficult angles, I worry about his lack of roll gravity at the pro level. Sorber especially struggled to convert against high-level competition, with his true shooting dropping to 46.7% in 8 games against top 50 competition. Combine that with his rough splits (6/37 from three) and Sorber’s offensive projection becomes awfully murky. I have some hope for his shooting, as he flashes a smooth face-up J and has solid touch from the foul line (72.4%) but it’s far from a sure thing.

Still, Sorber could be an impactful enough defensive chess piece to provide top ten value in this class, while giving you just enough on offense to make things worthwhile.

Will Morris

Despite measuring as the third shortest player barefoot (6’0.5”) in the 2025 NBA Draft, Jase Richardson is one of the most complete offensive prospects this year. Richardson is the epitome of being malleable on the offensive end, able to play on and off the ball with his combination of touch, processing and scoring excellence.

Jase Richardson saw his usage rise through his college season at MSU, primarily operating as an off-ball scorer, but he consistently showcased his ability to adapt to different roles. While his shooting numbers may pop off the page – 47.5% on off-the-dribble 2s, 41.2% on 3-point attempts, 83.6% from the line – what Richardson truly excels at is being a driver, hurting defenses with his acceleration and touch inside the arc. 

Richardson’s first step is solid, but he truly stands out with his ability to accelerate through his second and third strides while using sharp angles to create separation. His ankle flexibility and footwork allow him to stay tight on drives, reducing the need to veer away from the rim. Regardless of his stature, his controlled acceleration and 6’6” wingspan enable him to find unique finishing angles at the rim. When he is cut off on drives, he is fantastic at using his counters, whether that’s a pull-up middy, floater, or grifting to get to the free throw line. The immense scoring pressure he puts on a defense shows up in his 41.8% free throw rate (FTR).  

On occasion, Richardson can be myopic with his scoring which could be a product of not being able to see over defenses, but in general he does a good job reading help defenders and consistently makes the right pass to find open teammates.

His feel also shows up off the ball, often pressuring the defense with unstructured cuts and constant relocation to open up the floor for his teammates.

There has been a common question of whether Jase Richardson can truly play the point guard position, especially with his margins as a smaller player, high assisted rates inside the arc and a 14.4 assist percentage. This stems largely from Richardson’s role as a scorer and the overall structure of MSU’s offense. MSU used a lot of Weave DHO and Zoom variations, which meant Richardson was often getting assisted on possessions even though on tape he was creating most of these drives once he received the hand off. Additionally, MSU was one of the worst teams in the nation at taking and making 3-point shots, which actively meant many of Richardson’s perimeter passes would not translate to the box score. 

Richardson needs to improve his volume as an interior passer as he continues to develop, especially passing over the top of defenses. Since he is so adept at taking floaters inside the arc, being able to mask floater attempts as lobs would be a great wrinkle to add to Richardson’s offensive utility. With his quick processing, sharp passing deliveries, and low turnover rate (9.9 TO%), Richardson shows real potential to scale up as a table-setter at the next level.

The defense will be an issue as a smaller player, but Richardson does have the lateral speed, strength, and length to take on smaller matchups. He needs to improve on his closeout footwork as well. At the next level, he could be more of an event creator, as this is another area MSU suppressed him. MSU was the second-best team at limiting opposing 3-point efficiency, a result of the defense asking players to stay attached to their matchups and gamble less in passing lanes.

All in all, Jase Richardson is one of the better offensive bets in this year’s draft, but his lack of size and defensive limitations affect his margins, making him a riskier proposition for NBA teams.

Jeremiah Fears, standing at 6’3″, emerged as the leader of a top-40 offense despite his freshman status. Fears, only 18, took on a significant usage rate over 30% on a team competing in one of the nation’s most challenging conferences. Fears’ nimble handle allows him to create advantages at will and get downhill with the ball. Fears’ ability to adapt to the tough competition while taking on primary ballhandler duties displays mental fortitude as a strength.

Offensive Creation: Beyond Elusiveness

Fears’ elusiveness with the ball is amplified by his functional strength – equally capable generating paint touches as free throw attempts. His strength, displayed through constant subtle shoulder bumps and body control, gives him additional separation, especially when driving through traffic. He can absorb contact while staying on balance, using that physicality to get advantageous positions to set up himself or his teammates. This makes him a multifaceted offensive threat, capable of both evading and overpowering his opponents despite his shorter stature.

Fears has the potential to be a real contributor on the defensive end. He might not be an Alex Caruso on D, but he’s definitely not a liability either.

In his first year at Oklahoma, Fears showed flashes of being a play-maker on defense. He actually led his team in “stocks” (steals and blocks combined) for the season, which tells you he’s got active hands and good anticipation. He can really disrupt things and turn defense into offense. Now, he’s not perfect. Sometimes he gets caught “ball-watching” or out of position, which can be frustrating. But when he’s locked in, he’s great at staying in front of his man and forcing turnovers.

What really stands out to me is his quick hands. He’s so good at stripping the ball, deflecting passes, and just messing with offensive plays. And even when he’s not directly guarding the ball, he’s always looking to make a play, almost like a defensive back in football. He’s constantly trying to “make something happen” on defense. Given what he’s shown, I think Fears could definitely become a neutral defender. That would make him a really valuable player all around.

Larry Golden

Despite being only 6’6’’, Adou Thiero spent a strong majority of his time playing the four rather than the three. That’s because he has an arsenal of tools unlike any other in this class. That positional capability makes his splotchy perimeter skills less damaging, and in fact gives him some enormous edges he is capable of exploiting. For that reason, Adou Thiero finds himself in the middle of the first round on Swish Theory’s 2025 Big Board.

Thiero has a seven-foot wingspan and measured with a 41-inch max vertical leap at Kentucky’s 2022 pro day. Some have reported it as high as 46 inches. Carter Bryant is the closest athletic comparison, but even he lacks compared to Thiero and has shown far less application of tools. In fact, Thiero may be the single best athlete in the class, to steal a line from fellow Swisher Avinash Chauhan. 

And it shows, both on tape and the box score. He is not just potentially the highest leaper in the class but also the quickest (even surpassing the very quick Cooper Flagg). His ability to get off the floor in an instant means he can wait longer to commit to contesting, making his rim protection all the more viable as a four. He is also very strong, meaning he’s a durable leaper, unable to get knocked off his spot.

Thiero’s athleticism is best noted in the box score via his staggering free throw rate. Here’s a list of free throw rates by play type: 133 as a roll man (yes, he took more free throws than field goal attempts), 104 off of cuts, 91 in isolation, 86 out of post ups and 76 in transition. But most importantly, he drew 61 free throws on 100 drives – very strong in both rate and volume, and especially for a small-ball power forward. Not only does he use his strength and leaping but also is able to change pace, manipulating launch pads where the tools then take over.

Thiero has more signs of ball skills beyond that, too, even if unpolished. He is capable of basic reads which brought him 2 assists per game and has a stellar runner, shooting 17 for 29. The three point shot is not there but the free throw is decent at a career 71%. A defense would likely give him space, but he is excellent at using that space to create a physical advantage or get to his floater. With Thiero, it’s not as simple as “wing who can’t shoot,” as he has shown touch, some handle and generally sound decision-making.

Holding him back is how his feel is good but not excellent, but even that is mitigated by Thiero being one of the fiercest competitors in the draft. Many of his 49 dunks were through traffic, and his constantly hounding defense earned him 1.6 steals and 0.7 blocks per game. The side effect there is a bit of a fouling issue out of over-aggression, and another sign of perhaps not quite elite feel. But Thiero is a powerhouse who has proven he can score and rack up defensive events while just generally being physical, everywhere. Even at an older age of recently 21, there is plenty of upside here. If the driving, and foul drawing off of it, sticks, he could be a strong scoring option while also being a major defensive plus.

Matt Powers

I first noticed Carter Bryant a few years ago while scrolling through TikTok.

It was one of those gimmick player interviews by Bleacher Report, where the reporter asks a clip farm worthy question. Something like “2016 Chino Hills or 2020 Montverde?” But there was this one guy who was remarkably well spoken. It was obvious he was a student of the game (he performed well on a quiz of naming former players), and each of the answers he provided during interviews was detailed and well-thought out. This was around the time when the Thompsons were at OTE, and their demeanors were unusually similar. I mentioned this to Mike Gribanov at the time, and I’ve been monitoring Carter Bryant’s development ever since.

The same precision in Carter’s meticulous interview responses is apparent on the hardwood. Carter has a unique intersection of quick-twitch athleticism, size, and reaction time. He accrued tons of stocks and deflections, putting up 4.3 dBPM/17.8 DREB%/5.8% block/2.8% steal this season at Arizona. He’s able to absorb momentum and reach into tight spaces to shut down possessions, and his long arms are especially functional with his vert and burst.

The list of prospects with max vert > 37, sprint < 3.15, and steal rate > 2.5 is just 22 names long (out of a possible 732). As you can see, Carter is at max vert 39.5 in, sprint 3.09 s, and steal rate of 2.8%. He comfortably clears these thresholds.

This list showcases fairly rare company, but notice how the vast majority of prospects here are guards. Listed at 6’6.25 shoeless with a 7-foot wingspan, Carter is way bigger than most names here. The only comparable player size-wise is Chris Singleton. Who?

Chris Singleton was a Florida State power forward who shot 59.6% FT across 3 years in college. Carter shot 70%, with a high school accuracy of 80% FT on an extensive sample. Singleton shot career 48% on 2s, while Carter shot 60% on 2s. Chris Singleton was athletically similar, but far less efficient of a scorer and a much worse shooting prospect than Carter.

Again, Carter is a special athlete, with elite speed, testing, and reaction for size. But he’s also a uniquely good shooter for size. A whopping 60% of his shots were 3s. You do not see wings with 60 3PR and positive defense, let alone an uber athletic wing with elite defense. It’s safe to say that Carter’s combination of three-point rate, defensive instincts, run/jump athleticism, and pure size has never been matched.

The downside is that Carter is a very raw prospect. The vast majority of his baskets were assisted, which has proven to have a strong bust signal for non-centers. He fouled a ton, and he had very little on-ball equity. 

Moreover, the last time we saw Carter in an on-ball role was during AAU, where he was morbidly inefficient and tanked his pre-draft stock. Much of this was because he took 2.4 dribble jumper 2s per game. That’s ridiculous; it’s a volume matched by known college pullup-2 merchants Kawhi Leonard and D’Angelo Russell.  But he was also a horrible finisher, and much of that was because he soaked up far more usage. He had a 25% drive frequency, which is an Adou Thiero (best perimeter driver in class) sized proportion! Overall, he shot 39% on 2s, but he also shot 34% from 3 and 88% from the line (37 shot sample).

Sure, Carter wasn’t properly optimized in AAU, but lots of NBA-adjacent talents score way more efficiently inside the arc than he did. From what I’ve seen, those scoring inefficiencies were a big part of the reason why he wasn’t even considered a realistic 1&D prospect coming into the year. Now, in a highly idealized context where he had to make minimal decisions in a low-usage, highly-assisted role, Carter has returned to prominence as a hyperefficient wing? It’s fair to be suspicious.

Carter played in a highly unoptimized system in AAU, yielding comically poor scoring efficiency, and he played in a highly optimized scheme in college, yielding strong efficiency. The reality is that his long-term NBA offensive role will likely be somewhere in between, but there’s no reason his shot diet can’t be as ethical as it was at Arizona. Assuming he’s able to sustain high three-point rates (if his long-term track record on FTs is any indication, he will be a good shooter for a while) while also finishing through NBA length on cuts and drives, his offensive production will more than suffice. And of course, as long as Carter’s massive standing reach, elite tools, and seamless ability to toggle between on- and off-ball defensive goodness can translate to the league, we’re talking about someone who can really fit into lineups as a true 3&D option, as well as a positive locker room guy. 

I’ve continued to follow Carter’s hoops journey since watching that BR interview. An interesting note as I’ve watched his interviews: throughout high school and going into the year, Carter cited midrange heavy players like Jayson Tatum and Paul George as primary influences to his game. However, in a recent interview at the combine, Carter immediately spoke about how he hopes to be a premier wing stopper who can guard 1-5, and he named Toumani Camara, Trey Murphy, and Herb Jones as players he has been watching. With continued buy-in to his role, I am optimistic that he can be this type of 3&D wing: the type of player who makes highlight blocks one possession and knocks down corner threes the next. 

Avinash Chauhan

Standing at 6’6” in shoes, Kasparas Jakucionis should be able to play both guard spots at the next level, but lacks the typical star-level athleticism indicators (slower footed, only one dunk during his freshman season, block rate under one) found in most high-end prospects. His combination of touch, skill, passing feel and youth leaves the door open for star-ish outcomes, but the likelihood of hitting such an outcome is a true “beauty in the eye of the beholder” situation. Your general draft philosophy will play an enormous role in how you value Jakucionis as a prospect, perhaps more so than any other prospect in this class.

Kasparas has great size for his position as a potential lead ball handler, and while he lacks grown man strength as a teenager, his frame should fill out well over time. More importantly, he already plays strong. He is tough on the boards and isn’t afraid to use his body, an impressive attribute considering the relative strength disadvantage he faced throughout the season. His body should mature into the build of a true “big guard”, but the picture of his ball-in-hand upside is muddied by athleticism and handle concerns.

As I mentioned earlier, Jakucionis does not have any of the statistical indicators that tell you “this guy is an NBA athlete”. Poor steal and block rates, poor dunk numbers, and he attempted more three pointers (170) than two pointers (169) during the season. There is real reason for hesitation with that statistical profile, and then you turn on the tape and the concerns seem justified. He can struggle to beat his man off the bounce, loses the ball in traffic way too easily, and can struggle to create good looks that are not step-back threes. So what upside are we talking about exactly?

The positive view of Kasparas does not involve him being a significantly better athlete than he showed at Illinois, nor does it delegitimize his struggles to create looks for himself during his freshman season. Those are genuine knocks, and issues that actually existed this year. The case for untapped potential lies not in the struggles but in the soaring highs that are littered throughout his tape, and more generally, the nature of development in the modern NBA.

Kasparas is an excellent passer, particularly considering he played his entire freshman season as an 18-year-old. He has good vision, particularly out of the pick and roll, and he tries some stuff. That results in some ill-advised lobs and passes directly to fans sitting courtside, but there are also flashes of brilliance. He is not the Lamelo/Trae style of imaginative genius, but his natural creativity is a compelling sign for continued growth as a distributor. Physically, Jakucionis is creative with his delivery angles, has the strength to make passes off a live dribble with either hand, and has excellent ball placement on his deliveries. The ball never sticks, and his quick decision-making should provide an impact even if he is playing a more off-ball role.

The shot projection is a mixed bag statistically, low midrange volume and a 31.8% mark beyond the arc, but it comes with real signs of encouragement. The three-point mark is low, but he took 9 attempts per 100 possessions (solid), shot 84.5% from the line (excellent) and 63% of his three point attempts were unassisted (a lot). On film, Jakucionis’s ability to create looks beyond the arc has grown immensely over the last two years. He is on a steeply upward trajectory, and while those attempts have largely been from a step back going left, his proclivity to pick that up quickly is an encouraging sign.

Part of his high turnover rate is the frequency with which he simply lost the ball while dribbling. As the space around him shrank, the likelihood of a negative outcome rose exponentially. Kasparas has a good feel for how to use screens as a ball handler, but is often reliant on a screen or semi-advantage to get downhill. He is not a great ball handler now, but his issues come from needing to tighten things up rather than trying to machine learn creativity. He can string together dribble moves and has some flashy finishes with both hands, with good efficiency. He has the kind of dexterity with the ball in his hands you look for out of guard initiators, but there is a looseness with the ball that will need to be ironed out over time.

If things break right, there is a real world where Kasparas is an All-Star level guard who can score efficiently at all four levels both on and off ball. If the handle tightens up, strength gets added, and the jumper continues its upward trajectory, he is an incredibly valuable offensive guard. Those are things that are realistically developable, but the flip side is true as well. If he never develops into a reliable shooter he will struggle to return top twenty value, and if the handle doesn’t tighten up it is hard to imagine coaches trusting him with the ball in his hands. There are multiple visions for Jakucionis as a pro, which one you see will be determined by your perspective.

Tyler Wilson

Nique Clifford is a buffet of a prospect, he gives you a lot of pretty much everything. Clifford took on a larger role at Colorado State this year becoming their de-facto primary option and he absolutely thrived. He upped his creation volume and turned into a real scorer off the bounce while continuing to grow as a shooter. Nique hit over 37% from three on more than eight attempts per 100 possessions, with a third of his makes being self-created. Those aren’t excellent numbers but they are abundantly solid given the offensive load he carried. Clifford is a well-rounded offensive wing who can do just about anything you ask him to do.  

He entered the year as a three-and-D prospect with a little bit of funk and finished the season as a true-blue creator. He was excellent at scoring out of isos and operating the pick and roll, where his finishing craft shined for a 6’6 wing. Nique is great contorting his body to maneuver around shot blockers and has good touch at the rim, along with the high-flying acrobatics you would expect for a prospect of his ilk. He is an excellent cutter finishing lobs on the baseline or snaking through an opening in the defense to get a quality look at the rim. There are times I wish he was more physical, but his frame limits his ability to absorb contact. Even with that limitation, Nique shot over 60% on layups and was a true difference maker at the rim.

Nique’s increased creation burden allowed for more opportunities to display his passing chops, and boy, did he deliver. He looked incredibly comfortable with the ball in his hands creating looks for others, knowing how to manipulate both time and space to create open passing windows and quality shot attempts for himself and others. He doesn’t have the handle or downhill ferocity to project into a high-volume creation role in the NBA, but his comfortability using ball screens and surveying the floor is a wonderful feather to have in your cap as a prospect. Three and D wings don’t really exist anymore, defenses are too good and too insistent on taking away threes. You have to be able to put the ball on the deck and make some things happen, and Nique should thrive in those scenarios at the next level.  

Defensively, Nique had a high work level despite his offensive load. He has good vertical pop as a helpside rim projector and solid timing jumping passing lanes, all while constantly executing his scheme-specific role. Clifford is an explosive athlete, but can struggle to flip his hips and change direction guarding ball handlers in space or closing out to shooters after digging on drives. That weakness takes some of the top off his defensive ceiling, as he is neither a lockdown defender or a true havoc inducer, but he is reliable. There is value to both effort and execution and Nique delivers on both. He does not project as someone who will drive high-level defense, but he could certainly be a catalyst for it. 

Nique Clifford is about as well-rounded of a prospect as you will find in this class. He isn’t the biggest for his position, his handle isn’t saucy and his defense isn’t smothering, but he gets the job done in more ways than one. His tape doesn’t leave you dreaming of upside scenarios and stardom, but you don’t have to squint to see how it translates to the next level. Good basketball teams are made up of good basketball players, and Nique should fit like a glove in just about any functional team context. 

Tyler Wilson 

Cedric Coward was one of the more unexpected early entrants in this year’s draft, having missed most of the college season with a partially torn labrum and initially committing to transfer to Duke, fueling the assumption he’d return for another year. However, after an impressive showing at the NBA Draft Combine, his decision to forgo Duke and remain in the draft looks far less surprising.

At the combine, Coward measured in at 6’5.25” barefoot with a whopping 7’2.25” wingspan and 38.5 inch max vertical. Coward’s intersection of length, vertical athleticism, and shooting touch is extremely rare. Since the 2000 NBA Draft, only four sub 6’6” players have had a wingspan over 7’2”, a max vertical above 35 inches, and a free-throw percentage of at least 70%: Kelly Oubre, Rondae Hollis-Jefferson, Jalen Williams, and Cedric Coward. Taking it even further, Jalen Williams and Cedric Coward would be the only players with a free-throw percentage above 80% in their pre-draft year.

The shooting touch goes beyond the free-throw line. Coward is a career 58.6% on far 2s, 76.1% on 2-point attempts, and 37.6% from the 3-point line. This shows up on tape as well, where he has a high and quick release, enabling him to shoot with versatility, whether it is off movement, off the catch, or off the dribble. 

While much of his career production came against weaker competition in the Big Sky, his physical tools help support the idea that his game can translate to higher levels. There is some proof of this during his brief stint in the WCC, where his production scaled up against stronger, more athletic opponents like Iowa before his season was cut short by injury.

What makes Coward intriguing is that he is also a high feel player. He reads defenses effectively as a passer and makes snappy decisions, regardless of whether the requirement is to make a single-level or layered read.

The biggest concerns with Coward’s game are his handle, strength, and perimeter defense. 

When it comes to his handle, Cedric Coward struggles to dribble in tighter spaces, particularly in traffic or when faced with stunts and digs from help defenders. His dribble tends to be too high, and he often defaults to turning drives into post-ups (Barkleys) to avoid pressure on his handle. While he’s comfortable using Barkleys to back down defenders and get to his spots, that strength does not translate to traditional drives. He often has trouble using his body to create space when initiating the drive or generating better finishing angles once he’s already on the move. This is why he has a heavy post-up rate in every setting he’s played in.

Defensively, Coward’s ground coverage, length, and vertical athleticism enable him to be a good roamer and backline help defender. These same traits allow him to be a fantastic rebounder, despite his strength limitations. The concern on the defensive end is that Coward does not functionally apply his length well enough on the perimeter. He struggles to get over screens and often opts to go under to avoid getting beat by paint pressure. This is reflected in his 1.8 percent career steal rate, low considering the size of his wingspan. He also needs to clean up his closeout footwork. His steps are often choppy, and he does not close out with wide hips, instead leaving his top foot open and allowing ballhandlers to attack it.

Overall, Coward has a real chance to be a closeout creator and even run some second-side pick and roll, but he needs to land in a system that uses scheme to create easier driving lanes. 

Even though he is 21.77 years old on draft night, playing through hand-offs and screens would give Coward the margins to develop his handle and strength long-term. This would be the best way to leverage his physical tools and overwhelm defenses with momentum. His footwork on defense can be improved, but he is better optimized helping on the backline rather than at the point of attack and navigating screens. However, with his recovery tools and feel, he could become a strong lock and trail defender when forced into perimeter actions.

No rim protector in the country avoided fouling like Kalkbrenner did last season, and certainly not anyone with a 7.3 block rate. This ability to rim protect without fouling has been a skill of his since his sophomore year when he produced a 6+ block rate with <2.0 fouls per 40 minutes, something only Steven Adams, Evan Mobley, Kel’el Ware, and DeAndre Ayton have done as underclassmen. It’s a display of feel and hand-eye coordination that few have, and one that was forced due to Creighton’s dependence on Kalkbrenner. He traded blocks for fewer fouls to stay on the court longer (83% of team minutes played — Mobley and Ayton are the only other 7-footers with >80% in a season), which naturally hurt his block rate. On an NBA team, though, he’ll likely be allotted more aggressive defensive contesting and should thus retain most of his rim-protecting impact. See Zach Edey, a career 7.4 block rate/3.1 fouls per 40 prospect with a massive 5.6 block rate (94th percentile) and 5.2 fouls per 40 as a rookie.

Kalkbrenner’s wingspan (7-foot-6), average agility (51.7 agility score among centers), and great rim protection should make him a beast in drop coverage, but a lack of plus agility and poor changes of direction limit the coverage versatility he provides to essentially just drop. The integration of limited versatility and old age (23 years old) put a cap on his potential defensive impact at around +1.0 points per 100 possessions, or around the 85th percentile.

There’s a decent chance Kalkbrenner shoots. One of the craziest stats of this cycle is that Kalkbrenner is 6/21 on dribble jumper 3s in the last two seasons. Of course, most of those jumpers aren’t truly off the dribble, and they look more like this:

But coupled with his strong hook counter (12% frequency), huge sample of FT competency (70% on 600 attempts), and respectable 43% on non-rim 2s across his career, I’d wager there’s a pretty reasonable chance that Kalkbrenner becomes a legit stretch 5 in the NBA. While his volume is somewhat low (1.8 3PA/100 across his career), this far outpaces many current stretch 5’s shooting volume in prospecthood.

Kalkbrenner is an elite finisher. Absolutely elite. He made a whopping 77% of his close 2s across his career, but what’s even more compelling is that nearly half his rim makes were dunks. His elite finishing and hook conversion was good for a career 67% TS. You can’t teach that size and length, and it appears inevitable that Kalkbrenner will be a dominant finisher in the NBA.

What’s especially compelling about Kalkbrenner is his precocious production. This is not your typical college senior breakout; Kalkbrenner has been consistently elite since his sophomore year. Take box-score metrics: Kalkbrenner has put together 4 straight seasons of 5 PRPG + 9 BPM, and no one else has even had more than 2 such seasons. Along with Ayton, Edey, and Kaminsky, he’s the only 7-footer to eclipse 6 PRPG. And Kalkbrenner hasn’t just dominated college; he played a critical role on the Team USA national team that won gold at the 2021 FIBA U19 World Cup.

Kalkbrenner finished top 5 in Player Efficiency Rating at the tournament, behind a triumvirate of seven-footers: Edey, Wemby, and Chet. Some traits continuing over from Creighton: Kalkbrenner was a monster offensive rebounder but a tepid defensive rebounder. His steal rate was nonexistent; he drew just 0.24 FTA/FGA, and his assist rate was under 10%. On the bright side, he had a 10% block rate and just 1 TO in 7 games.

Kalkbrenner’s dominance even stemmed back to AAU. Playing for Mac Irvin Fire’s 17U team on the EYBL circuit, Kalkbrenner averaged a ridiculous 4.3 stocks per game while shooting 80% FT + 59% TS. He managed to block 2 shots per foul; this is the highest block-to-foul ratio I’ve ever seen, in any context.  Somehow, he was ranked outside the t100 despite dizzying EYBL production. To this day, that remains the most baffling mismatch of EYBL production and recruit rank that I’ve ever seen.

Two qualms and one point of optimism:

First, Kalkbrenner is not as physically taxing on defenders. His career 40 FTR is weak, and he just doesn’t force contact in the post as much as prior seven-footers that I liked in the past. Furthermore, Kalkbrenner is a pretty mediocre rebounder for his size; while some may argue his defensive rebounding issues are schematic, I’d point to his 15% defensive rebound rate during the U19 World Cup. He’s also just a mediocre offensive rebounder for his size, and he doesn’t feast on putbacks very often.

Losing valuable second chance points and free throw attempts is a big deal!  Edey and Clingan, for instance, spawned into the league as two of its best rebounders, which allowed them to contribute immediate value despite some scoring struggles. Kalkbrenner doesn’t have this same leeway.

Second, Kalkbrenner’s processing may limit his upside. His career 7.7% assist and 0.9% steal marks should be red flags, and they’re corroborated by his lack of passing and steal volume in AAU and FIBA. Zach Edey is a solid point of comparison here, but as someone who watched the tens of hours of Edey tape, I feel confident saying that Edey was a better processor. Edey had higher passing volume while commanding far more attention per post touch. Moreover, Edey was comfortable soaking up usage as the primary point of focus for defenses, while Kalkbrenner’s usage and scoring burden were much lower throughout his career.

As for a point of optimism: Edey went from mediocre Purdue block rate to 80th percentile block rate + 30th percentile steal rate (for position) in his rookie season. This was expected by many; he intentionally avoided fouling at Purdue because his team needed him to play the majority of the game. Similarly, what happens when an NBA team plays Kalkbrenner just 20-25 minutes a game and doesn’t place the same anti-foul constraints on him? If he’s already pushing 2 blocks per foul across AAU + college, and his primary objective shifts from avoiding fouls to grabbing blocks, what’s stopping Kalkbrenner from pushing a 90th percentile block rate for position? We actually got a glimpse of this reality at the U19 World Cup, where Kalkbrenner dropped to “just” 1.29 blocks per foul but hit 10% block rate.

Given his tools and the degree to which he generates blocks without fouls, I expect Kalk’s stock numbers to rise given his astounding discipline. His wingspan, average agility testing, and great rim protection should make him a beast in drop coverage, but a lack of plus agility and poor changes of direction likely limits the coverage versatility he provides to essentially just drop for the time being.

Kalkbrenner is the last of the vaunted High School Class of 2021 center class, which included luminaries such as Evan Mobley, Zach Edey, Walker Kessler, Mark Williams, Johni Broome, Hunter Dickinson, and Adama Sanogo. A center class packed full with perennial double-digit BPMers. Following in the path of his drafted contemporaries, Kalkbrenner is going to dunk/finish everything, potentially shoot (not a gimmick), and anchor a legit defense. His lack of passing, foul drawing, and rebounding could hinder him, but Kalkbrenner is too big and impactful not to stick in the league for a long time. Every team could use a Kalk.

Avinash Chauhan

Asa Newell’s success will come down to wingification.

There’s no mistaking Asa’s offensive box-score production this year. In the last 15 years, 13 freshmen had produced 5+ PRPG, and only Cam Thomas didn’t go top 10. 17 players have produced 7+ offensive BPM, and 15 of them went top 10. 

How has Asa been so productive on offense? The simple answer is that he’s been an utter force around the rim. 40% of his scoring possessions have come via cuts or putbacks, and he’s shooting an absurd 67% at the rim in the halfcourt. Asa is such a smart rebounder; he’s able to accurately ball-track while sealing, and he’s precise in tracking the trajectory of missed shots. This anticipatory trajectory tracking is also apparent as he rises to tap missed shots into the rim. Asa is a big human being, but he’s not that physically imposing. His combination of anticipation and a quick load time manifested in an elite 14% offensive rebound rate.

While he relied on second-chance and cuts en route to high efficiency hoops, it is unlikely that Asa will be able to continue this sort of shot diet in the NBA. Asa has limited viability at the 5, namely because he’s small and can’t protect the rim well. At the combine, Asa measured at 6’9 shoeless with 6’11 WS and just under a 9’ SR. He has good height, but that’s Carter Bryant/Flagg/Ace length. On D, length >> height, always. Asa primarily played the 4 at Georgia, and he is nowhere near a capable enough rim protector to play the 5 consistently (just 3.8% block rate). 

Asa will need to diversify his shot diet to play high leverage minutes at the 4, as this “garbageman” scoring archetype has been highly disappointing in recent years. 

Two of Asa’s closest statistical comps are Marvin Bagley Jr. and Obi Toppin. Both feasted off offensive rebounds, cuts, and rim dominance, and to be clear, both were pretty good finishers in the league too. Bagley couldn’t score outside of the rim and both were poor defenders, unable to defend well inside or on the perimeter. TJ Leaf was another comparison, as a resounding Lonzo merchant that was effectively awful on landing. All had much better defensive rebounding, assist rate, and 2P% compared to Asa, but Asa has some sneaky edges that I’ll elaborate on.

The framework I’d use to explain relatively disappointing outcomes for Toppin, Bagley, and Leaf’s careers is wingification. As you can probably surmise, wingification refers to the process of converting a college 4 into a true NBA wing. The modern NBA wing can switch onto smaller guards and bigger wings, take contested 3s, and operate at high decision-making throughput. Let’s go through these three elements of wingification and assess whether Asa can make the leap from modern tweener to wing:

1. Switching

Bagley and Leaf were actually somewhat quick. Bagley was getting “switchability” shouts prior to his draft, and Leaf put up a speedy 3.19 sprint (he also clocked in a horrible 12.26 second lane agility). But it’s clear neither of them were able to convert speed-for-size to action via reaction speed, as they had hideous steal rates. Obi Toppin had a 1.7 career steal rate, but he was getting beat off the bounce at Dayton regularly. None of these three players were positive defenders per EPM, and while Toppin is the most “successful”, he clocked in a 1st percentile EPM this season.

Asa is not only quicker than these guys, but he had the highest steal rate. He has demonstrated legit switchability (albeit in a chaotic defensive infrastructure), and he’s showcased his agility via perimeter swipes into transition dunks. His 10.95 lane agility and 2.78 shuttle run indicate strong change of direction and general agility, and these are numbers that (likely) far surpass the aforementioned triumvirate. He didn’t defend there often, but Asa is a far better bet to defend like a wing than those guys.

2. Decision-making

Unfortunately, Asa also had the lowest assist rate of these players by quite a bit. Some of this is by virtue of the fact that his scoring burden had a relatively low creation opportunity- a player who scores off putbacks and cuts is not in position to create for others. But shot diets can also be considered the inverse of a players’ weaknesses, and the reality is that Asa took a shot diet unconducive to racking up assists because he is likely not optimized in an on-ball role where he would accrue more assists. In 14 games across FIBA U17/U19 WC, Asa averaged just 0.8 assists/40 and ~ 2% assist. While his assist% is technically on the comeup, my biggest worry with the wingification of Asa is definitely how quickly he can process on O.

3. Shooting

Asa is by far the best shooting prospect of that query. He made 75% of his FTs and took 5 3s per 100 possessions. Asa’s soft touch on runners and hooks is also notable; 18% of his scoring possessions came this way, and he averaged a reasonable 0.8 Points Per Shot. He also made 37% of his open C&S 3s. These are not normal shooting numbers for someone considered a non-shooting big, as he’s shown underlying touch and the willingness to take 3s. 

Pay attention to that micro turnover rate too- the list of prospects with career TO rate under 10% is littered with shooters. While he’s not a good passer at all, there’s a case to be made that his ball-tracking on the offensive boards, strong steal rate for a 4, and elite TO avoidance hint towards latent processing goodness. I’d be more comfortable making this case if his passing priors weren’t so atrocious.

Two more notes about Asa:

First, Asa was a hideous driver, and it’s possible he never hits the minimum on-ball skill threshold to play the wing. Just 8% of his HC possessions were drives, and he was both inefficient (0.757 PPP) and contact-averse (0.26 FTR). That’s not to say he isn’t functionally strong: his ability to leverage his lower body and push into defenders is how he ranks above the 85th percentile in both postups and putbacks. But the early driving returns aren’t pretty, and given that handle is equal parts decision-making on small time intervals and skill development, it seems unlikely that Asa has the underlying skill beds to ever hit legit handling outcomes, even in rosier timelines.

Second, Asa was the unfortunate recipient of Georgia’s horrid guard play. While Toppin and Leaf were considered by some to be products of high-paced, lob-conducive offensive systems, you will not find anyone on this planet saying that about Asa. In fact, Georgia’s guard play was flat out horrible (73rd out of 79 high major teams in TO rate). This was especially notable in transition, as Georgia’s guards were not fast enough to push the pace or make quick reads, and their offense stalled in these moments (Georgia was 23rd percentile in transition scoring). 

As such, just 8.3% of Asa’s scoring possessions came in transition. For context, that number was 18% for Obi, 17.5% for TJ Leaf, and 13% for Marvin Bagley. Noa Essengue, a player with a similar mold and broad playstyle similarities, had a 21% transition frequency!

All of these players were remarkably efficient in transition, which is no surprise considering it has the highest PPP on median for most players. And there is no question that Asa is built for transition with his quickness, ball-tracking, and vertical. Asa was in the 9th percentile in transition scoring frequency but the 95th percentile in overall. transition scoring.

Ignore the “how”, but what if Asa’s transition scoring frequency was more in line with the likes of Bagley, Toppin, Leaf, and Essengue? As I outlined at the start of this, Asa is one of the most efficient offensive producers we’ve seen, but it’s reasonable to say that this was a fairly low end offensive context for Asa. Could we have seen him hit like 6 PRPG + 130 OTRG + 8 O-BPM? I’m certain that he could have put up even more gaudy scoring numbers in a context similar to his comparators. 

Overall, the wingification of Asa is not particularly likely, but it’s more likely than previous iterations of this garbage-man 4 mold. As a production truther, I am compelled by his ridiculous consistency in production in every single meaningful simulacrum: from his college catch-alls versus top 100 teams to his efficiency in both the U17/U19 FIBA World Cup, to his usefulness for arguably the best high school basketball team of all time. This is a prospect who undeniably produces in the highest leverage minutes. He’s a bad mold, has awkward dimensions, and his combination of poor passing feel and lack of wingification may preordain him to journeyman status. But considering that his poor mold and feel is already baked into his draft stock, I think that the delta between Asa’s implied draft capital and aggregate career production makes him an undeniable value in this year’s draft.

Avinash Chauhan

Let’s start with a bart query. What a surprise.

Let’s run with this: “Off Reb % ≥ 7; Assist % ≥ 12; Ast/TO Ratio ≥ 1.1; Block % ≥ 2.7; Steal % ≥ 2.2; 3PA/100 Poss ≥ 4; Conf = truhi”

Basically, a career offensive rebounding/assist/stocks with a shooting + high major filter to approximate Noah Penda’s production. Penda is 7.5 oreb/15.2 assist/1.5 a:to/3.7 block /2.5 steal and somewhere ~ 5 3PA/100; spare me the debates on ethics, as he comfortably clears these thresholds.

The results? Danny Green, Jae Crowder, Jeremy Sochan, Jarace Walker, Otto Porter, Gary Payton II, Draymond Green.

What a mf list. Penda is younger than half this list, with a higher A:TO (1.5), FTR (40), and TS% (55%) than many here. He is no slouch; he is just as good of a prospect as many of these players… if he put up these stats in high major NCAA.

Jeep Elite is a good league, littered with many former NCAA stars, but it’s fair to wonder how Penda would have performed in the NCAA. What is the playstyle of Penda’s team in Jeep Elite relative to an NCAA team?

Penda’s Le Mans ranked 48th percentile in transition possessions and 53rd percentile in half-court possessions amongst Jeep Elite Teams. Kansas also ranked 48th percentile in transition and 53rd percentile in halfcourt amongst NCAA teams. However, Le Mans averaged 87.2 possessions a game, 13.1 in transition and 74.1 in the halfcourt. Kansas averaged 79.9 possessions a game, 12.1 in transition and 67.8 in the halfcourt. Basically, Le Mans plays faster, but Kansas has a higher transition frequency. While this is a very quick, dirty, and imperfect approach: in projecting a player from Le Mans to Kansas, they would generally play the same number of transition possessions per game but lose a decent number of HC possessions. I would guess that most of this difference is probably just from the shorter shot clock in Jeep Elite (24 seconds) vs NCAA (30 seconds).

I was excited when I first calculated this, as Jeep Elite prospects could potentially receive a buff given that most players are far better per possession in transition than in the halfcourt. Unfortunately, Noah Penda is not one of those players. Penda is the rare player that is ~ 0.85 PPP in the halfcourt and in transition. In fact, Penda is one of the worst prospects in transition that I can recall, particularly for his size. I challenge you to find a wing prospect with worse transition scoring per possession. 

There are some valid excuses. I don’t have evidence for this, but it does seem as though defenders got back in position more quickly in Jeep Elite than in college. Perhaps this has something to do with the shorter shot clock, but it seems like the quality of contests is slightly higher in Penda’s league. Also, Penda was 1 for 8 on transition 3s and 0 for 3 on transition runners; 32% of his transition attempts were non-rim shots, and he was 1/11. You can imagine that this skews his percentages. 

While Penda was a more tolerable 71% on transition rim attempts, this is still more indicative of a below-the-rim finisher than your average wing. And that would check out, because Penda is a horrible vertical athlete. In fact, Penda’s combine testing was one of the worst of any non-center prospects. You can excuse the 7’2 250 pound Khaman Malauch for a 24 inch standing vert and 12 second lane agility time, but sub 7-foot defensive stoppers should not be putting up a 25-inch standing vert with 11.7 lane agility. For me, under 25 inch standing vert is entirely disqualifying for guards, and the wing threshold is just a bit higher. Awful agility and verticality for position is quite unfortunate for Penda, and it introduces a new degree of variability for his translation.

This issue predictably rears its head in half-court rim finishing situations; Penda was a disastrous 38/76 (50%) on halfcourt layups. What’s even more concerning is that he dunked at a below average clip (9 HC dunks in 37 games could maybe be excused by frequency of on-ball reps, with ~10% freq of cuts), and 72% of his 2P attempts were at the rim. This is effectively a 7:2 rim to non-rim 2 ratio, which is not particularly favorable for a below-the-rim sort of athlete. 

This shot diet is indicative of a lack of midrange counter, which checks out. Penda was really bad on runners last year, and while he’s toned down the volume, he’s still far below average efficiency. Across this year and last, he is 5/25 on runners overall (20%). Yikes. He was 11/22 on dribble jumper 2s, which is promising albeit an insignificant sample across 88 games. Other than that, it’s just pounding the rock at the rim. 

If Penda is a poor finisher with limited midrange counter, surely he’s a great shooter right? Not quite. Penda is up to 37/115 (32% 3P) this year, but he’s shooting just 67% FT. Last year, he was 31/117 (26.5% 3P). Shooting can improve, but shooting 67% on FTs and 30% on 3s with a high sample size across 2 years indicates that he will likely never be a truly good shooter.

So, Penda has weaknesses in transition scoring, in halfcourt rim scoring, in halfcourt midrange scoring, and in 3P scoring. Why am I so high on Noah Penda if he can’t score?

Because the feel is really that damn good. (Let’s define feel as rapid processing speed via the application of tools for reaction).

Penda is one of the highest feel wings in recent memory. He may be a poor leaper/runner, but his defensive highlights are next to none. His passing is legit. 15% assist on 18% usage is nuts man. And a two year A:TO of 1.6? Wing-sized passers are always, always at a premium in the league, and this is one of the best true wing-sized passers of the last few years.

Part of why Penda is such a good passer is that he can really handle and move in space with the ball. He has a 17% drive rate, which is above average for guards, with a 10% TO rate and 0.38 FTR on said drives. He also runs a ton of PnRs, with 11% PnR BH frequency. At 0.690 PPP on PnR BH reps, Penda was definitely inefficient, but don’t let it distract you from the fact that this sort of drive and PnR BH frequency for a forward, let alone a forward with 8’11 SR + 240 pound frame, is extremely rare. Most players of this build (say, CMB) are scoring out of postups rather than via PnR BH reps. There’s a reasonable argument that Penda has untapped creation upside given his strong on-ball frequency, handle, impressive downhill driving, and rapid reaction speed; while this seems unlikely to me given his speed/vert and poor scoring touch, his handle x size integration may end up being too good for a team not to diamond test in the league.

Penda is a spectacular defender. Across the last two years, he’s ~ 3.8% block/2.7% steal. And most importantly, Penda doesn’t foul- he’s just under 3 fouls committed per 40 minutes. For someone with such quick hands on D, his instincts and precision operate synergistically to force TOs while limiting foul risk. This ability to force TOs without fouling on D and pass without TOs on O is so rare. As I find myself repeating, Penda’s feel for his size is just remarkable. 

A potential implication of the aforementioned scoring possession discrepancy between France and NCAA is that stock rates are likely lower in the French league, because there are more FGAs per 40 minutes by virtue of the shot clock. There’s a good chance that Penda’s elite stocks are still lower than expected because of French league suppression + foul avoidance.

And we can’t forget just how well-sized Penda is. He measured 6’7.25 shoeless (~6’9 in shoes) with an 8’10.5 SR and 7-foot WS. Most importantly, he weighed in at a monster 242 pounds! This is a big ass wing. He’s basically CMB sized, but he’s shown a higher 3P rate (still a worse prospect, with worse rebounding/FTR and far lower usage).

Penda’s international track record is also excellent. He made the U20 Euro All-Tournament Team with a game-winning three. But what was really notable is how he was shifted into a less drive-centric role, allowed to crash the class. Penda put up a monster 12.8% OREB/21.4% DREB on 63% TS !!! He was running lots of PnRs, which elevated his TO rate to 21% and probably demonstrated that he’ll be capped as a lower usage wing in most NBA outcomes. And of course, he put up his typical 3% block + 3% steal. Penda was also quite good at U17 WC, where he put up 25 PER and a resounding 7% steal rate. He was worse shooting at U19 WC, but still racked up his signature OREB/AST/Stocks. One thing to monitor is that Penda’s usage was ~20% across these tournaments, and he was also at 20% TO rate. That was still good for 1.3 A:TO, but avoiding TOs is a critical part of his pitch as a low-friction wing in higher-end outcomes.

My pitch for Penda is a pitch on outlier sensorimotor cognition for mass. Penda is a supremely high feel prospect for a wing, let alone a huge armed, thick wing. He can really handle and get downhill, he’s an elite passer, he generally avoids TOs and fouls, and he racks up tons of stocks. He is also a great positional rebounder. You really cannot ask for more positive feel indicators. Penda has some real red flags as a scorer and athlete, but I’m betting on one of the highest feel wing prospects in recent memory to make it work. The turnover economy is critical in today’s NBA, with quick processing wings who can avoid TOs on offense and force TOs on defense being at a premium.

One last thing. Remember that query at the beginning? Let’s see if any were as tepid scorers as Penda projects to be. Go back to that query and look for the player with wing-size who happened to be the worst scorer at the rim and the worst scorer on 2s (hint: he’s at the bottom). This prospect also happened to be the closest to Penda’s A:TO/stocks/TS/WS/weight. Fun fact: said prospect was an utter non-shooter at Penda’s age.

Basketball isn’t played on paper, and Mr. Draymond Green had far more midrange counter while developing as a high-usage passer and rebounder by the end of his senior year. But on paper, the similarities between Penda and Draymond anthropometrically, statistically, and feel-wise are hard to deny. It would be laughable to project Penda anywhere close to Draymond impact, and there’s a reasonable argument that a 20-year-old without game-breaking numbers in Jeep Elite will never even sniff All-Star impact. But I do feel comfortable saying that we haven’t seen a prospect match Dray’s strengths AND weaknesses in the same way that Penda does.

A team looking to draft Penda would be wise to keep this DPOY/WWE fighter-sized niche in mind; with a few coin flips in favor of scoring and athletic improvements (half glass full type), Penda could really be a special type of wing in the league. I am philosophically inclined to always, always, take a stab at the high reaction speed, positionally huge, two-way prospect with legit productivity. 

Avinash Chauhan

Players in Walter Clayton’s mold – older, smaller, yet productive college guards – are often not highly valued in the draft, but Clayton stands out from the norm for a few reasons. Most notably, he possesses a truly elite skill in his perimeter shotmaking and general ability to get into his jumper. His numbers are already impressive (a career 39% from three on 11.8 attempts per 100 possessions, and 88% from the free throw line), but the eye test is even more convincing. There are very few players, at any level, who can match Clayton’s combination of shooting versatility – both on and off the ball.

The off-ball aspect is another area which separates him from many guards in his archetype. A lot of smaller college guards are used to dominating the ball and struggle to adapt when they don’t meet the threshold of an NBA-level primary initiator. While Clayton played on the ball plenty in college, he’s clearly one of the top 2-3 off-ball shooting prospects in this class. He’s comfortable running off screens and has impressive body control with the ability to square up and get balanced in midair, which gives him real gravity as a movement shooter.

Another positive indicator for Clayton is that he does have some strength and physicality to his game, even if that’s not what his skillset is based around. At nearly 200 pounds he has a good amount of bulk for his size, which has proven to be extremely important for being successful as a small guard in the NBA on both ends. His career FT rate of above 30% is very respectable for a high 3pt volume guard, and shows he has at least some physicality to his game as a driver. Defensively he’s probably never going to be an asset, but if his strength allows him to hold his own when teams try and target him, that can make a notable difference in the amount of value he brings to the table. 

A big question mark with Clayton is how much he’ll be able to handle the ball in the NBA. He’s more of a scoring guard than a natural playmaker, and while he’s capable of making reads out of ball screens, I think his vision lags a little behind the median NBA Point Guard. He has enough burst to get past defenders off the dribble, but his handle still has room for improvement and he’s not going to stand out athletically at the next level. If Clayon can sharpen his decision making and floor game to the point where he can operate as a primary ball handler for stretches, that could be the difference between being a full time player vs. a bench specialist.

AJ Carter

The pitch with Rasheer Fleming is simple: he is a wing with center-length, switchability, and legit three-point volume. The list of NBA prospects who took 7 threes per 100 possessions with a 7’5 WS is exactly two: Jaren Jackson Jr. and Rasheer Fleming. 

Rasheer’s measurements are important, with a shoeless height of 6’8.25 and massive 7’5.25 WS, good for a 9’1 SR. These are massive numbers for a non-center. For context, above is a list of every single non-center (removed all Cs or PF-C’s) with a wingspan over 7’2. Rasheer has the second highest WS, behind Lee Scruggs (undrafted, did not play an NBA minute) and half an inch ahead of Kevin Durant. Effectively, Rasheer is the longest non-center (and thus the longest SF) we have ever seen. Of these NBA players, only KD and Eddie Griffin put up more career 3PA/40 in their college season.

Rasheer’s shot diet is Daryl Morey’s dream. Rasheer is basically center sized and takes 92% of his shots at the rim or from 3. From my numbers, there has never been a prospect with this extreme of a shot diet; his diet of 40 rim:nonrim2 versus t75 comp is by FAR the most extreme rim-heavy diet of any prospect.

Rasheer is also a legit defender. He was impactful forcing defensive turnovers, as St. Joseph’s forced 4% fewer dTOVs with Rasheer off (I would estimate this would be at least an 80th percentile+ differential amongst all players). He was a career 6% block + 2% steal on a St. Joseph’s team that suppressed steals. 

Rasheer’s overall impact was strongly positive. By Hoop-Explorer’s real-OnOff, Rasheer was +9.3, by far the best on his team, and much of that was from offensive on/off. St. Joseph’s was far better with Rasheer playing, with +13.7 offensive rating swing, far better shooting (+ 5% eFG%), fewer TOs (-2.4% TO), and way more rim attempts (+5.7 rim freq) when Rasheer was on the floor vs off.

Furthermore, Rasheer is pretty young for his class. Born on July 10, 2004, Rasheer won’t even be 21 on draft day- he is fairly close to the average age of a sophomore. He’s improved rapidly each year- he was an unranked prospect who played for the EYBL circuit’s NJ Scholars team alongside a bevy of 5 stars: DJ Wagner, Mackenzie Mgbako, Aaron Bradshaw. His final year of AAU, he shot 14% from 3 on just 11 3PR and 30% TS overall. Statistically, he was by far the worst player on that team. Now, just a few years later, Rasheer will be the first and potentially the highest drafted player from that star-studded team. Youth, size, and positive developmental momentum are important indicators of continued outlier development.

So to be clear, this is basically a center-sized forward with strong 3P volume, immense offensive impact, and positive effect on forcing defensive TOs with a healthy block rate. He’s made rapid improvements over the last 3 years. He appears to be Darryl Morey’s dream player. What’s not to like? This seems like an easy wing bet with legit upside. But Rasheer’s positionality appears to be in flux for a number of reasons, and I’m unsure about his legit upside.

At first glance, these all seem to be heavy positives. This seems like an easy wing bet with legit upside. But Rasheer’s positionality appears to be in flux for a number of reasons, and I’m unsure about his legit upside.

While Rasheer has been hyped as an uber-long wing prospect, I believe that he should primarily play the 5 in the NBA. Go back to the first table, where I sorted the 7’2+ WS players by assist+steals. Rasheer’s assist and steal rates are not consistent with NBA caliber wings, specifically that assist rate. His career 6.8% assist rate is quite center-like.

Furthermore, Rasheer’s Moreyball shot diet is amusing but it’s indicative of limited offensive upside. We have barely seen any center prospect with this extent of an aggressive rim-heavy diet, let alone wings. The reality is that Rasheer has absolutely no mid-range counter. He took ~ 0.6 long 2s/game across 3 years, shooting just 30% on these non-rim 2s. But a closer look at these “long 2s” indicates that nearly all of them were hooks. Rasheer took 4 total dribble jumper 2s this year, and he made none of them. He took just 16 hooks, making 6 of them (4.5% frequency). 4.5% hook frequency is pretty low for true bigs, as it’s a common counter out of postups. Bigs who don’t take that many hooks aren’t as comfortable with their touch; scoring out of that short-intermediate area is just as important as finishing at the rim, and it’s unclear whether Rasheer will even come close to progressing a viable face-up game.

Zero midrange counter is consistent with Rasheer’s lack of general ball skills and lack of passing. Rasheer had a reasonable drive frequency (13%) for his size, but he could not score – he shot 37% on 2s out of drives, with an even worse 25% TO rate. He had just 5 total possessions in iso or as PnR BH; coupled with his driving inefficiencies, complete lack of passing, and highly unassisted, low volume midrange diet, Rasheer appears to be unable to play on-ball in even a micro-capacity in the league.

Moreover, it’s unclear how good a shooter Rasheer actually is. On one hand, his poor AAU priors can be viewed as evidence of impressive developmental momentum; alternatively, his lack of priors coupled with his generally poor touch indicators could mean that his gaudy shooting percentages are an overestimate of his shooting ability. 

Fleming shot 35% from 3P on 349 attempts across his career, but shot just 68% FT, a low percentage for any high-level shooter. A third of his threes were of the open C&S variety, and the other two-thirds were guarded C&S threes – he took no OTD threes. This was the first year with far more guarded than unguarded 3s. Many of his 3s look like this:

While I’ve seen Fleming skeptics point to his lack of midrange counter and middling FT indicators as evidence that he won’t shoot, I have a bit more trust in the 350 shot sample. It’s not as useful to rely on proxies when we have a reasonable 3PA sample. But there is certainly more variability in Fleming’s shot projection, and he appears to be a standstill C&S specialist at best. 

Fleming could probably guard smaller guys in spurts on defense, but he relies on his length to make up for vert and, to a lesser extent, his mediocre processing. While this clip showcases Fleming’s strong recovery tools, but it happened because Rasheer couldn’t get skinny with the screen and stick with the BH. This may be nitpicking, but there’s a high bar to consistently guard quick BHs in the NBA.

For these reasons, I view Fleming less as a wing and more as a small ball 5. The issue is that he has awkward dimensions for a 5; while his 7’5.25 WS is above average for the position, he is quite a bit shorter than your average center. Not that it matters too much, but there have only been 19 players with height under 6’9 and WS over 7’4, and none were high end impact players. It’s a list littered with power forwards, like Montrezl Harrell and Noah Vonleh, as well as some listed centers (Wendell Carter Jr and Zay Stewart).

Rasheer does not finish or draw fouls well enough to play the 5 either. 

He drew just 0.31 fouls per FGA, which is way on the lower end for a wing, let alone a center. Anything under 45 FTR is generally problematic for a center.  Part of this could be blamed on his 40 3PR, but as we recall, he takes no midrange shots, so his rim frequency is basically 60 percent. And, Rasheer was at 11 FTR in AAU, so it’s clear his contact aversion has been a persistent. 

Rasheer is a career 68.9% finisher at the rim, with 90 career dunks in 101 games. While < 1 dunk/game is somewhat low, it is not disqualifyingly low and can be explained away by usage. The real issue is Rasheer’s poor finishing rate for a center. While this is a great wing finishing rate, anything under 70% finishing is a historic red flag for centers. Sure, he’s not that far off, but career samples are fairly extensive, and 70% finishing is still way on the lower end for centers. While I recognize many of the thresholds I have stated here are seemingly arbitrary, the reality is that the history of centers who succeeded with 30 FTR or sub 70% finishing is pretty poor; in conjunction, it is exclusively populated by well-regarded busts.

Even if we raise the bar to 75% at the rim + 38 FTR (with the block rate/height to get real centers), the hit rate is pretty silly. Many of the “hits” (Santi/Vuc) were high volume long2 scorers (> 40%).

Rasheer should defend well. He can force dTOVs, he has a huge wingspan, and gets tons of stocks. He is also very quick for his size, and his combine speed testing was phenomenally good. 10.95 lane agility and 2.72 shuttle run, which ranked 8th and 2nd, respectively, amongst the non-guards at the Combine. The issue is that his vertical was pretty poor, with just a 32.5 max vert. This was surprisingly low; there are some clips (as the one before) that show him getting quite high off a standstill. But just as many clips exist depicting Rasheer’s poor vertical barring no load time, so his poor vertical explosion is likely a pertinent weakness nonetheless. I do not see Rasheer being a viable lob threat/cutter in the HC on volume, but perhaps a change of scenery could prove me wrong.

I don’t see much upside with Rasheer on offense if he doesn’t become a high-end shooter. This is possible, but 35% on 350 C&S attempts with unspectacular touch indicators makes this less likely.  He is a potentially special defender, but he doesn’t offer the rim protection, foul drawing, finishing, or height to be a high-end 5. His lack of midrange counter and passing is severely below average for a forward, let alone a junior (albeit a young junior). The glaring issue with Rasheer’s profile is that he does many things at a decent level, but there’s nothing notable; he shows up in bust queries like this because none of his feel/rate stats that is particularly above average for the position, besides rebounding.

It’s hard to ignore Rasheer’s immense length and 3PR, and there’s a reasonable chance he becomes a high-level defender. I’m disillusioned with his offensive outlook, particularly his inability to take midrange/drive/pass, but he could be permitted to push up the 3PR and sit in the corner/feed on the occasional assisted at-the-basket makes if his defense is good enough. 

It’s typically hard for me to bet on non-centers that don’t pass or draw fouls, but Rasheer could reasonably 3&D his way out of purgatory. Expecting high-end offensive value would be ridiculous, but this is the sort of player that could stick around for a while just by making 3s and playing hard. If I squint and ignore age-adjusted production differences, I can vaguely see an argument for an archetype analogous to a smaller, quicker Jaren Jackson Jr, or perhaps a better rim-protecting PJ Tucker.

Avinash Chauhan

While his perceived ceiling is limited by his age and subpar athleticism, Kam Jones has the chance to be much better than folks anticipate. Role diversity and historic productivity are the pitch. In his younger NCAA years, Jones’ most pro-ready traits were his movement shooting and off-ball aptitude. But as a senior, Jones took the keys to the offense and turned into a usage machine and star lead initiator. Across roles and usage rates, Jones has remained a productive player, posting 7.4, 8.6, and 9.3 BPMs in each of the last three seasons. 

Jones didn’t just excel initiating Marquette’s offense: he turned in one of the most dominant slashing seasons in recent history. He scored 4.84 unassisted shots at the rim per 40 minutes, higher than any of the 200+ guards in my prospect database that dates back to 2011. De’Aaron Fox had 4.25 in his pre-draft season. Ja Morant had 4.03. Shai? 3.08. Jones doesn’t win with a crazy first step, but rather supreme pace, crafty ball-handling skills, and feathery touch. He’s a ground bound finisher, but wins on a diet of scoops, extension finishes, and close-range pull-ups. Even without elite lift, Jones finished a blistering 59.3% of his shots inside the arc for his career on 789 attempts. 

But perhaps Jones’ largest development this season was his playmaking ability. Jones used his scoring gravity to set up teammates very well this season, recording a 38.1% assist rate. I’d describe him more as a steady drive-and-kick guy rather than a gunslinger, but he maps the court well and still puts the occasional WOW pass on tape. Despite having the ball in his hands all game, he maintained an exceptional 3.2 assist-to-turnover ratio. 

Many will point to shooting as a potential question mark. He did struggle from behind the line this season, finishing 31.1% from three. But going into the year, Jones was at 38.3% on 600+ attempts. Jones is not gun-shy, putting up tough pull-ups from deep and tough off-screen jumpers. This wouldn’t be the first time we’ve seen a good shooter’s percentages dip after scaling up: Austin Reaves shot 27.7% as “the man” at Oklahoma after going 45.1% in an off-ball position at Wichita State. 

The real concerns with Jones surround his lack of physical tools, which affect him on both ends of the floor. While he’s a fairly apt team defender, he’s probably merely survivable at his ceiling given his lack of strength and foot speed. And despite being a paint touch machine, he struggles to generate contact and get to the foul line. Regardless, Jones’ encouraging development curve and vast array of offensive skills make him a safe bet to stick in the league. He’s a guy who has found success in a variety of roles, easily adaptable to most pro situations.

Will Morris 

There have been thinkpieces, snide tweets, and garrulous podcast episodes released to the ether that have declared the death of the small guard. This is the league where seven footers spawn in from Europe with the ability to dribble, pass, and shoot. The league where Jalen Brunson was condemned as structurally incapable of bringing a championship to New York based on historical precedent. Small guards have always faced an uphill battle, but there was a time during the 2010s where it seemed as though the underdogs had finally won the war. There was a brief shining moment where we witnessed Steph MVPs, a legion of Kyrie dribble mixtapes, and we even saw our generation’s own Muggsy Bogues reviving the Celtics. But now, more than ever in my lifetime, it seems like the National Basketball Association has permanently turned its back on small guards as its players have become more skilled and taller than ever before.

What a perfect context for two of the best small guard shooting prospects we’ve ever seen to enter the draft.

This isn’t an analysis of Walter Clayton Jr, but both Walter and Javon Small are genuinely two of the best shooting prospects we’ve ever seen. The case for Walter is likely more intuitive, especially as he led a relatively low talent-index Florida team on a convincing national title run. But let me show my work on why Javon Small is one of the best college shooting creator prospects of my lifetime.

Specifically, I’m impressed by Javon’s shooting versatility. His combination of midrange shooting, FT%, and 3P volume puts him in rare air for a high usage creator. Across his career, he took 10.7 3PA/100, shot 87.1% from the FT line, and converted 41.3% of his midrange shots.

To approximate this, let’s look at the list of NBA players who even put up 10 3PA/100, 86% FT, and 40% midrange in college. The list is only 8 players long: Cannady, AJ Green, Sam Merrill, Jared McCain, Markus Howard, Sam Hauser, Tyler Hall, and Trae Young. But half that list did it on < 23% usage, which is relevant because higher usage increases the difficulty of hitting the midrange threshold. Of the high-usage players, only Trae and Markus did it at the high major level.

There’s definitely been many shooters better than Javon in college basketball. But it’s Javon’s combination of creation for others and his scoring burden that makes his shooting goodness so impressive.

Javon is a legitimately special passer. To me, this is what really distinguishes him from Walter Clayton Jr. Javon has a four year sample of leading offenses, with a career 31% assist rate on 26.3% usage. That’s good for career 1.7 A:TO, which is fairly good but not quite elite for position. Javon isn’t necessarily TO prone (< 20% TO rate), but he’s played on some really bad offenses where he was the main point of focus. He played 8 games with Tucker DeVries, and he played a full season with freshman Eric Dailey/Brandon Garrison at Oklahoma State: he really hasn’t played with anyone else who will even come close to accumulating low-leverage NBA minutes. Not only does he have the handle to consistently evade pressure, but he’s probably one of the best in the nation at forcing high value passes out of doubles. 

Another sneaky indicator of Javon’s feel is his uber-low foul rate. He has just 2.0 FC/40 over a 97 game career sample. This 24 player list of drafted prospects that didn’t foul despite high volume steals and don’t turn it over despite high volume passing is very favorable, including NBA finals headliners Shai, Hali, and Nembhard.

Throw on his high flying athleticism, and you can start to see why Javon might be able to break the small guard drought. 

While he unsurprisingly measured as a smaller guard, with 6’1 shoeless height and 6’5 wingspan, his hands are abnormally wide at 9.75 inches. Javon tested very well, with the third-highest max and standing vert out of all 2025 combine participants. His lane agility, shuttle, and sprint times were all within the t15 at the combine; Drake Powell was the only other prospect to finish top 15 in all 3 of these speed categories.

Combine testing is nice, but how good of a functional athlete is Javon?

Javon is a career 54% rim finisher, and he had just 7 dunks in the 65 games before this season. These are important red flags, but they also hide the horrible offensive contexts where Javon has hooped. His career splits are a strong divergence from his stats this year: Javon racked up a whopping 15 dunks in just 32 games and shot 62.2% at the rim. While this could be handwaved as another senior guard making an undeserved production leap as he finally reaches median college age, it’s Javon’s continued strong production versus legit good teams that has me more accepting of this late career improvement.

WCJ and Javon Small vs t75 Comp

In games vs top 75 comp, Javon was on fire at the rim. He was still at nearly one dunk every two games, and his finishing efficiency actually rose. To compare, Clayton played more minutes and took more 3s, but even if we adjust for rim attempts and minutes, it’s clear that Javon dunked and finished far better.

While this was still nowhere near an ideal context, the resiliency of Javon’s finishing and dunking is indicates that Javon’s career numbers may be an underestimate of his true finishing ability. The underestimate makes sense because of how horrible his former teams were.

It should also be noted that no one really expected this year’s West Virginia to be even this good. To be clear, West Virginia should have made the tourney this year, and they were definitely underrated by most fans. This is corroborated by the majority of the metrics that the NCAA selection committee utilizes, as well as their reasonable Quad 1 record. And Javon was a big part of why West Virginia was able to stay in the tournament mix despite a team with low talent index and the season-ending injury of star Tucker Devries. 

The on/off stats support this; I have not seen more violent on/off splits for any prospect this cycle. In garbage-adjusted splits vs top 200 teams: West Virginia was adjusted 113.2 points per 100 with Javon on, and scored 80 points per 100 with Javon off. I don’t know the percentiles, but scoring adjusted 80 points per 100 possessions has got to be something like the bottom 5th percentile. This 33 point offensive swing is insane. In every single facet, West Virginia’s offense fell precipitously with Javon off.

Even the West Virginia defense was far better with Javon on than off, with a massive 4 point defensive turnover swing with Javon on, and reasonably good -1.4 defensive real on-off. Javon is a pretty good on-ball defender, and much of this has to do with his frame. He has a large chest and is built well for 6’2. Despite shouldering such a heavy offensive load, he played hard on D. He ended this season with 2.6% steal rate and 1.1% block rate- that block rate is especially notable for his size and its a testament to his run/jump athleticism. 

Javon is one of the best undersized senior guard prospects of the last decade. That much is clear. He has one of the best skill, athleticism, and shooting integrations we have seen for a small guard; simply put, this is one of the best small guards we have really seen.

The question is, how much do we tax Javon for his archetype? Despite strong on/off swings, it is likely that Javon will be a liability on defense just by virtue of his size, and at best he would be a neutral. He showcased strong dunk and finishing goodness, but we can’t forget he was 54% at the rim and 38 FTR across his college career: this is subpar finishing in an era where the few rare small guard prospects are predominantly high end finishers and/or foul-drawers. How do we value an elite iteration of a low EV, unfavorable archetype?

I’ve been a Javon fan this entire cycle, yet I’ve had to slowly move him down my board as I’ve come to grapple with the realities of his archetype. An elite athlete with high feel who shoots at a ridiculous clip should be considered one of the best prospects in the draft. But historically, this combination of size and age is not favorable, and his career finishing issues are another testament to the difficulty of translation.

I’ve been fairly optimistic throughout this report, so I’ll end on a more pessimistic note.

In just 4 filters, I’ve given you a resounding bust query. Players who don’t finish, draw fouls, or crash the boards while also not avoiding TOs at an elite level usually fail to hit meaningful outcomes in the NBA. Isaiah Joe is probably the best player here (by roughly scanning for peak EPM), but was on the edge of the finishing query, and he is also 6’5. He also plays a very specific niche as a super high volume 3P specialist that is difficult to replicate.

This is one of the central bust queries to my draft philosophy for a reason, as it highlights the importance of high level positional finishing to make up for other skill deficiencies . Some other players in the 2025 NBA draft that qualify: Tre Johnson, Walter Clayton Jr, RJ Davis, LJ Cryer, Caleb Love, and John Poulakidas. Obviously, this could mean nothing at all; Javon is definitely one of the best shooters listed, and he’s not too far from the FTR and A:TO cutoffs. But it highlights the slim margins of success that small guards face in today’s NBA. 

Javon is one of the most talented players in this draft, and he has the ability to make it out of small guard purgatory. The odds are stacked against him, but if he’s given real opportunity, I am confident that he will surprise many. When’s the next time we’ll see an elite floor-raising creator, elite athlete, and elite shooter all in one?

Avinash Chauhan

Ben Saraf, 19-year-old combo guard, has made a name for himself with his strong performances on the international stage. Saraf has been an important contributor professionally with Ratiopharm Ulm in Germany’s Bundesliga as well as the EuroCup.

Saraf broke out at the 2024 FIBA U18 Eurobasket, winning the tournament’s Most Valuable Player award. He dominated as a lead ball-handler in the competition, putting up a stellar stat line of 28 points, 5.0 rebounds and 5.3 assists per game. Not just an offensive threat, Saraf finds all kinds of ways to contribute to the box score.

The Israeli guard is always composed, never rushed or appearing out of control. This makes him very appealing at a position where he would have the ball in his hands often. This demeanor, in turn, helps him execute plays with precision. Running pick and roll, as he often does, displays Saraf’s jump passes with eye manipulation that open up an offense. Saraf may not be the greatest athlete, but this misdirect compensates by scrambling the defense.

Saraf is excellent at getting the defender on his back foot. This is due to his mastery of stop-start movements, which he uses advantageously. His ability to tell when his defender is off balance or when a driving lane opens allows him to exploit any weaknesses. He has craft in his footwork, letting him change direction abruptly. He also uses his large (for a point guard) frame strategically: Saraf uses his body to shield off defenders, keeping his advantage in traffic. This combination of smart movements, heightened awareness and clever physical play make Saraf a true offensive threat.

Larry Golden

Before the 2024-25 season began, many scouts (myself included) projected Nolan Traore as a future top pick. He didn’t maintain that status throughout the season, though some evaluators undervalued his play in the French LNB Pro A. No longer a dominant interior scoring threat, Traore found other ways to help his team.

Traore made significant defensive strides for Saint Quentin this season, applying his physical tools, speed and instincts to add positive value. Though Traore’s steal and block numbers (1.8% steal rate, 0.3% block rate) don’t paint a positive picture, his excellent range helped him execute long rotations and blow-up actions as an off-ball defender.

His 6-foot-8 wingspan boosts his suite of point-of-attack matchups, letting Traore check quicker guards and larger wings. Traore must continue adding core and lower body strength to hold his position against stronger opponents, but he projects as a positive defender at the NBA level at the very least.

Though Traore struggled to score efficiently this season — his 51.2% true shooting ranks below the 20th percentile among drafted guards since 2008 — further context favors Traore’s projection. Saint Quentin depended on Traore to create offense, resulting in enormous usage stats. He leads the 2025 class in assist rate (42.8%) and offensive load (55.4) and ranks fifth in raw scoring usage (30.4%).

An elite first step breaks down defenses for Traore to score at the basket and find open teammates. He attempted an excellent 36.9%% of his shots at the bucket, converting a respectable 58.8% of them. Despite underdeveloped strength, change of speed and footwork, Traore still lives at the basket and scores efficiently, suggesting quite a bit of possible growth.

Playmaking numbers paint Traore as an excellent passer, reflected by his gargantuan previously-mentioned assist rate and solid 1.82 half-court assist-to-turnover ratio. Many of those assists come from his offensive scheme, where head coach Julien Mahe treats Traore like a game-managing quarterback, trusting him to execute actions and find open teammates.

His live-dribble decision-making still needs work, evidenced by a fairly high 11.5% creation turnover rate. Live defensive rotations are often too much for Traore’s fledgling processor, resulting in bad shots and turnovers. That makes him a great but not elite passer who playmakes at his best with good teammates and a coherent offensive structure.

Outside shooting is Traore’s most obvious swing skill, as the teenage floor general made just 31.4% of his triples this season. Opposing defenses dipped under ball screens and dared Traore to shoot and he often obliged, resulting in huge pull-up volume and poor efficiency (28.6% from 3, 23.6% from mid-range). He converted a respectable 37.5% of his catch-and-shoot threes, which will help him scale down to a heavier off-ball role in the pros.

Traore may never find himself in a heavy on-ball role in the NBA (though we shouldn’t rule it out with burst as dynamic as his). He still has pathways to success through the development of his on and off-ball shooting, decision making and finishing craft. Shifting to a low-usage role isn’t a given for young players, but Traore is talented enough to make it work.

Ben Pfeifer

The concept of pre-drafting gained public attention when PD Web talked and wrote about it. When analyzing Will Riley as a prospect, I always come back to the concept. Riley, at this point, has a few major weaknesses that align well with what the NBA as a whole is excellent at: developing strength and filling out the body by natural age progression. The lack of strength makes a lot of what Riley does an uphill battle from the beginning, most often with mixed results. 

Riley’s overall level of touch helps him to win in a lot of situations that players with similar weaknesses would ultimately lose. Despite his clear lack of strength, he is currently a very capable finisher at the rim with solid volume. He has a herky-jerky style of dribbling, which allows him to frequently get to his spots. His play off two feet allows him to stay balanced in more crowded areas and create better angles for his finishes. At this point, Riley can’t create meaningful advantages on his own and needs some help, either schematically by coming off movement into his on-ball actions or by his smart off-ball cutting.

His shooting percentages for Illinois are heavily influenced by 1. his rather difficult shot diet and 2. his going only 12/41 (29.3%) on unguarded catch & shoot threes, which is nearly ⅓ of his overall three-point attempts. I expect him to smooth out the percentage over time, by gaining a bit of strength and having a more suitable shot diet overall. Defensively, he at least tries, but his impact is limited by a lack of strength in every aspect. His STL% and BLK% are comically low for a guy his size and athletic profile, which, to an extent, comes down to Illinois playing a really conservative scheme, not creating many turnovers or blocks. His low number of steals and blocks in high school and AAU suggests Riley won’t be a defensive playmaker of any sort. My hope is, again, that physical improvement leads him to a place where he can become a more capable defender.  

In the end, 6’9’‘ guys with dribble, pass, shoot capability don’t grow on trees and in the right development context, Riley could deliver a much higher value than his draft night or board position might suggest. His future team needs patience, and the right plan to develop his weaknesses. There is a wide range of outcomes with a hard floor for Riley, which prevents him from gaining a higher board position for most people. His NBA success will go hand in hand with his level of physical development.

Dennis Janßen

Yes, I’m about to make a case for an NCAA player with a miniscule 13.3% usage rate. That number is so low, in fact, it ranks as the sixth lowest among all high major college players overall. So then, what’s the pitch?

Well, first, not every player can be high in offensive usage, a simple fact of teambuilding. Nor should every draft swing be a bet on it, as there have been plenty of low usage Hall of Famers. Nor should a team allocate a heavy amount of resources trying out every high usage offensive prospect that they can. Nor should a team allocate a heavy amount of resources trying out every high usage prospect. It can be more beneficial to see how your recent picks all play off of each other, which would mean variety of role and usage.

So, if you’re going to draft a low usage offensive player. They should exhibit a few qualities. First, they should be a very good defender, and preferably a high usage one. Compensating for the lack of energy expense on offense, this player should take advantage by providing suffocating defense. This means both off-ball activity and on-ball energy, both combined with technique. Powell has as much upside as any point of attack defender in the class, possessing quickness, strength, flexibility and the ability to recover quickly. He plays very hard, knowing where his money will be made, prone to make difficult blocks utilizing his seven-foot wingspan and best-in-class 43 inch max vertical leap.

If you’re going to draft a low usage offensive player, you would want them to make the most out of their few touches, as well. This means smart moving of the basketball, an area Powell is adept in, despite his <10% assist rate. He very rarely turned the ball over, but neither did he often venture outside of his comfort zone. When he did, however, we still saw some flashes of high level processing.

In addition, Powell has some upside as a play finisher. While it’s mostly been flashes in a very limited role, Powell’s pull-up jumper has improved rapidly in recent years. This season he was in the 75th percentile for dribble jumper frequency and 83rd percentile in efficiency. As a high school senior he was in the 97th percentile in frequency and 47th in efficiency; in his final EYBL run, 49th and 51st. There has always been experimentation, clearly visible in Powell’s strong technique, both stutter-ripping in the beginning and pivoting at the end of his drives.

Powell’s ceiling is also evident in him being one of the best athletes in class. Not only did he have the best max vertical (albeit with a rigid preference for two-foot leaping), but also finished top ten in lane agility, shuttle run and sprint. The tape backs this: Powell is able to float around the court, imperfect with his positioning but more than compensated by his elite sliding and recovery tools. It’s going to be tough to get past Drake. Don’t let him fall too far.

Matt Powers

While many consensus boards have ranked Joan Beringer consistently high throughout the cycle, Draft Twitter has been far more conservative with its placement. Two weeks ago, you’d be hard-pressed to find many DT boards with Beringer in the first round.

Then, his measurements were released. Beringer measured 6’11 barefoot with a 7’4.5 wingspan and a 9’3 standing reach. He weighed in at 235 pounds.

Immediately, the hype train started. There’s a segment of Draft Twitter that is fairly anti-measurements, with the belief that raw measurements are not nearly as important as the application of those measurements. One should be able to decipher the functionality of these measurements (and perhaps even be able to approximate said measurements) from the tape. 

While I generally disagree with this frame of evaluation, I do find myself hesitant of the Beringer hype train. He has some impressive traits, but he’s a fairly boring mold with limited true upside. How much do these measurements meaningfully change his upside proposition?

For over a year, I had assumed Beringer to be 6’10 + 7’3 WS, as his NBADraft.net profile stated, so hitting 7 feet in shoes and getting over the 7’4 threshold (see my study on WS threshold for centers) was definitely compelling. I first came across Beringer prior to the season during a deep dive on 2024 LNB Espoirs stats. For context, Espoirs is the youth French league, and the average age is probably 19 or 20 years old. Most draftniks consider Espoirs to be an extremely weak league, and if a prospect is not dominating the league at 17/18, it’s probably over for them NBA-wise.

While this method may be highly conducive to false positives (it’s not actually clear if any former Espoirs alumni are actually productive currently), Beringer certainly dominated Espoirs as a 17 year old. He was 4th in block rate (6.8%), 9th in PER (23.8), 11th in TS% (65%), and 2nd in total rebound rate (17.5% OREB + 26.5% DREB!!). The downside is that he was solely a low usage playfinisher, with just a 17% usage rate, no 3P volume whatsoever, and a horrid 44% on FTs.

While Beringer’s dominance is notable, I’m wary of that low usage. Considering you really need to be blowing up Espoirs as a 17 year old playing similarly aged competition, I would think that Beringer’s low usage is unfavorable to his chances of eventually scaling up in the league.

Indeed, Beringer followed up last season’s Espoir’s low usage play-finishing dominance with another dominant season, this time for Cedevita Olimpija of Liga ABA (former league of Nikola Jokic/Jovic/Djurisic/Topic). His stocks and TS% remained high, while his rebounding slightly dropped. Notably, he rose from 0.5 A:TO and 44% FT to 0.7 A:TO and 56% FT. 

Here’s the dilemma: Beringer wasn’t quite as dominant as previous successful iterations of this mold, but he’s far younger. Let’s do some analysis:

Overly reductive analysis alert: I took the scoring, stocks, passing, rebounding, and PER of some notable international bigs, and I counted up the stats that ranked top 3 amongst this group. The final column denotes the number of “top 3” edges for each player. For instance, Beringer has one of the 3 highest block rates, so that counts as an edge. On the contrary, warts are values that are one of the three lowest in a given column. Beringer had one of the three lowest usages here, so that counts as a wart.

Jusuf Nurkic, Clint Capela, Goga Bitadze, and Bismack Biyombo had so many unique edges, particularly Nurkic. Gortat, Rocco, and Gobert had a number of major warts. In particular, Gortat, Nnaji, and Rocco all had the 3 lowest marks in blocks, steals, and rebounding. They are easily the 3 weakest prospects here. 

I am impressed with Beringer. He does not stick out too much (although third-lowest PER is somewhat problematic), nor does he have outlier warts. He has just as many edges as warts, and he has the highest number of median traits (lowest edge+wart aggregate). In other words, Beringer has some high-value edges (youngest, best block rate, best A:TO) while also staying in line with the group for many other traits. In terms of prospect value, he is not as far off from Capela as I expected, and he’s similar to Bismack. Gobert doesn’t do super well by this analysis, but his combination of length and 2P% is such a ceiling raiser. Rocco, on the other hand, is likely a solidly worse prospect than Beringer, as he put up these numbers in the far worse NBL.

The most notable aspect of Beringer’s game is how fluidly he moves for his size. Despite being listed as similar dimensions to Capela, Beringer is agile and is able to leap off either foot on contests. It appears that he will be able to play a number of coverages, as he’s already playing all over the floor. A common defensive play looks like this: Beringer is around the nail, he stunts at the BH, and he can seamlessly recover back to the roller and pin the shot attempt on the glass. He’s able to contest with either hand, which is interesting because he solely finishes with his right hand. He’s not entirely disciplined however: he averages nearly 5 fouls per 40, and sometimes he’s overzealous that he abandons his man in pursuit of the block, leaving the putback completely open.

Beringer’s coverage-versatile defense and gaudy block/reasonably good steal numbers indicate a pretty high defensive floor. I like using passing as a proxy for potential feel improvements (see the legion of elite passing wings who dominate on D), and while Beringer is a non-passer with limited usage, his rising A:TO with steals is compelling. I cannot emphasize enough that he really needs to be more disciplined (6 blocks per 10 fouls).

Ultimately, the pitch with Beringer is truly just a reliable lob threat with All-Defense potential. I do not see much room for offensive development beyond elite finishing/lobs, considering he was a low-usage/low pass volume big in a league of teenagers. He is the third youngest prospect in the class, so perhaps it’s more possible. Stretch potential seems very very far away, as he does not take 3s and has a career FT% mark around 50%. If you’re drafting this guy to be the next Giannis, you will probably be disappointed.

Still, Beringer is super young, does not have any real red flags, and has good size, feel, and athleticism compared to the playfinishing/non-shooter 5 niche. He’s of a boring mold with few red flags, but oftentimes I tend to prefer that type of prospect versus a risk-maxed home run swing.

Avinash Chauhan

Danny Wolf has shown time and time again to be undervalued and underrated. How does a near 7ft ball-handler end up playing basketball at Yale, and then instantly become a one-man offensive option at a D1 program just a year later?

While he wasn’t used every possession, Wolf was the primary pick-and-roll team-offense creator for Dusty Mays’ Michigan program; he was the 6’11” Point (Forward? Center?) running the show.

Wolf’s ability to orchestrate pick-and-rolls consistently, constantly finding a good shot for himself or the team alongside his powerful rim-rolling screen partner, Vlad Goldin, provides a proof of concept for any level of basketball.

A tall ball-handler can see over the defense, making passing reads even easier than normal. But let’s not pretend any seven-footer has this advantage; if every center has this advantage, then why don’t all centers just run pick-and-roll? Because they need the handles, vision, decision-making feel, shooting touch, scoring prowess, timing and body control to handle all the responsibilities of a P&R ball-handler at once, something Wolf has that most bigs his size don’t.

Danny ran 231 pick-and-rolls as his team’s ball-handler where his 0.94 PPP on P&R including passes ranked in the 65th percentile among all players.

Wolf ranks 14th in FGS, and highly in scoring and shooting via Cerebro Sports rankings of NCAA players in the draft. Wolf Ranks T-5th in At the Rim rating

Danny is a versatile scorer, a good shooter on and off the ball, an offensive orchestrator who can run either end of a pick-and-roll, and a potential offensive playmaking hub who can initiate a team’s offense as a primary scoring creator option.

Shooting:
33% 3P% on 51 Pull-Up 3PA
34% 3P% on 62 C&S 3PA
37% 3P% on 30 guarded C&S 3PA
58% 2P% on 207 Layups

Synergy Scoring Playtpes
1.14 PPP on 43 Putbacks
1.09 PPP on 44 Cuts
1.03 PPP on 31 ISOs (82nd Percentile)
1.02 PPP on 66 Spot Ups
0.94 PPP on 33 P&R Roll Man

Wolf’s ideal role at the next level probably looks similar to his Michigan role: playing the 4 with a big brute rim-rolling play-finishing center next to him. Wolf’s mobility is best used defending opposing 4s, where he can play help-defense at the rim instead of being the lone rim-protector.

As a point-forward, letting Wolf initiate offense in P&R, play 3pt connector, and act as a playmaking hub is how to maximize his winning impact on the floor. Wolf’s scalability is not his strong suit; putting him in the wrong role could mitigate the strengths he brings to the table.

Concerns exist about Wolf’s ability to truly play the five at the next level; is he a tweener who can’t guard anyone or a versatile defender that can guard big 4s and small 5s? Tbd.

Wolf has sound footwork, phenomenal passing, good perimeter shooting, tight handle, impressive two-way feel, unique playing style, special talent, at 6’11”.

Ryan Kaminski

Egor Demin is 6’8” with a pleasant-looking 3-point jumper, and he can pass the rock. Egor Demin cannot get by a parked car, and shot 27.3% from deep this season, albeit on a bunch of attempts.

It would be hard to find a Demin detractor or a superfan to disagree with either one of these sentences. And yet, the lanky Russian played point guard for BYU in 2024-25, amassing a robust 25.8 usage rate. At his best, which was often seen during uptempo possessions before the defense could truly get set, he could break defenses down at a level few 6’8” NCAA hoopers have been able to do. On this drive following something of a drag screen, he’s two steps ahead of the low man, and it results in a wide open 3-pointer for a teammate:

But press your ear to the screen on this play, and you may be able to hear the sound of dial-up Internet as Demin tries to shake his primary defender away, ultimately hoisting up a catch-and-shoot 3-pointer that draws glass:

All this indicates that whatever NBA team plucks Demin out of the draft will likely curtail his on-ball usage, and play him more as a wing. At 6’8”, a slightly slower release will still allow him to shoot over closeouts off the catch, and every couple clips of him bricking a three like the above, there is a confident swish from 25 feet out. Like I said, he took a lot of them.

Having turned 19 years old in March, the one-and-done prospect improved throughout the season; one of his better performances came in a round of 32 victory over Wisconsin, where he hit both pull-up threes and cutters, and even used his length to contest shots down low. Demin will walk into the NBA as one of the better outlet passers, though his rebounding numbers are suppressed by that lack of athleticism we discussed.

Given the positional fluidity, or in some cases, positional non-existence throughout the NBA, it’s hard to imagine a move to the wing will grant Egor Demin a much different pathway to success. But there is a chance that fewer ball-handling opportunities only accentuate his very real strengths and limit his very real weaknesses.

Lucas Kaplan