I’ll also touch on my misses from last year, and how I hope to correct for shortcomings next cycle. Let’s waste no more time and dig in.

2023 Values

This section covers the players I ranked highest relative to the actual draft results, utilizing Kevin Pelton’s draft selection value table. Is there a common theme, am I missing or onto something?

Drafting with One Eye Closed

GG Jackson (my #12, drafted #45), Trayce Jackson-Davis (my #26, drafted #57), Leonard Miller (my #9, drafted #33), Jalen Slawson (my #28, drafted #54)

My biggest difference this cycle from last was trying to have a more holistic approach to a player’s own role curve. That is to say, comfort with a role (particularly in the NCAA) is not automatic, unlikely chosen by a player and often different than presented in recruiting efforts. College teams need players to win, development systems need player to develop, players just want to be selected as high as they can while balancing the goals of stakeholders around them. It can be messy, and often is.

The group I’m discussing here did not all have sub-optimal roles, but perhaps ones that masked their appeal as prospects, or distorted viewpoints of how they might contribute.

My single greatest difference to actual draft results was one Gregory Jackson the Second. At #12 on my board, Jackson was not selected until the second round by the Memphis Grizzlies. While rumors abound of immaturity from GG during team workouts, I’m less bothered given the substantial talent, obvious at his young age.

The most significant obstacle to draft analysis, in my view (beyond not knowing ball) is to make a one-to-one connection between items you notice and items of significance. Watching GG, it is not difficult to spot places where he could do better. Passing is the most obvious, often tunnel-visioned in his scoring approach, amplified at South Carolina by few other legitimate options but still clearly present in Summer League play as well. But if one were to ding Jackson for each and every missed pass, one might come away with a more negative view than is accurate in consideration of his star power, and that’s really what we’re here for.

It is more damaging to not take major swings than it is to have the occasional bust. If a player busts, his on-court impact simply goes to zero – there is a natural downside limit in that you’re not forced to give a player playing time, nor does it necessarily hurt your odds of acquiring more talent. But if he hits, and I mean truly hits, as in worth a max contract, that changes your franchise’s profile over a decade or more. This asymmetry runs up against basic human intuition: risk aversion means we are naturally suited to play it safe. But for that exact reason can be the source of extreme value in the NBA draft.

GG was third in usage of all freshmen as the youngest player in all of college basketball. He never looked overwhelmed athletically, consistently hitting the boards (17% defensive rebound rate) while using up a mega amount of iso (100), PNR (107) and spot up (143) possessions. Simply put, senior year HS aged players are not built like GG, not often. While a scout may see a sea of red marking up his execution on complex plays, he is able to put himself in those scenarios over and over with the flexible tank that is his hulking 6’9’’, 215 pound frame.

GG has a combination of traits I view highly in combination: when he has his nose in a play, he is determined to finish it (dawg factor); a frame to play power forward or small-ball center; the flexibility to get low into drives; an elite second jump; good shooting mechanics. Those are the traits of a scoring engine – as I put it in my scouting report of Jackson early in the season, “GG wants to be your team’s leading scorer,” and he has the mold for it. There are simply not many people in the world who have that combination of traits at an NBA level, and it takes two seconds watching GG move in Summer League to see how easily he belongs, physically.

Moving on to the rest of the group, the theme remains of swinging into uncertainty, where you have tangible evidence of NBA player-ness. By that last term I mean a collection of base skills that would be surprising to find in a non-NBA player. Let’s go through them quickly.

• Trayce Jackson-Davis: production, production and production; second jump; balance; sparks of creativity and touch at size
• Leonard Miller: dawg factor; production at age and competition; elite flexibility; sparks of creativity and touch at size
• Jalen Slawson: production and athletic versatility; team success; sparks of creativity and touch at size

The common trait for these remaining three is having some passing and some shooting touch but also defensive creativity, capable of picking up unexpected assists, steals or blocks in ways that took their opponents by surprise. Being two steps ahead of processing at lower levels, or even just hanging in at a higher level (in Miller’s case) is a good sign of being able to pick up NBA schemes, and the size of all three makes it easier to get the reps to showcase that. The flashes of touch and passing are simply compounding benefits as different areas of value on the court and expanding number of schemes in which they fit.

All four of the players here have role questions. “Can GG play off-ball?” (Summer League answer: yes); “Does Lenny fit cleanly into the 3, 4 or 5?” (Summer League answer: yes); “Can Trayce Jackson-Davis protect the rim as a 5?” (tbd); “Can Jalen Slawson shoot well enough to be a 3?” (tbd). But I also think these questions oversimplify what is a chaotic process in scouting. As Avinash said in his stellar Leonard Miller piece, “since when can we effectively project roles to begin with?”

That is not to say we shouldn’t try to project role, but we certainly shouldn’t let confusion in the exercise stop us from ranking a prospect highly.

I call this section “Drafting with One Eye Closed” as drafting is foremost an act of imagination, but that includes some willful optimism at times. The balance of cost relative to benefit of trying to make an unusual player work is lopsided, assuming the talent is indeed there. We draft players to try to alter the path of franchises, and the only way to do that is to try where others do not. Role occlusion, whether established upperclassmen or molds-of-clay youngsters, can be an opportunity masked by the same risk that drives people away.

To put the concept in more human terms, the game of basketball evolves in unexpected ways, and you need unexpected players to fit that evolving vision. The talent and effort side is the player’s job; fitting them onto the basketball court is the role of those around them.

Make Something Happen

Nick Smith Jr. (my #13, drafted #27), Amari Bailey (my #19, drafted #41), Sidy Cissoko (my #25, drafted #44)

Decision-making can be the most maddening NBA skill to dissect, making it all the more important in our evaluation of guards specifically. Guards typically survive on being nimbler, better handlers, shooters than their taller brethren, but this also means they have to make a greater number of decisions with or near the ball. If their decision-making is sound, they will make the product better, scheme running smoothly each time; if poor, the whole system can collapse. Repeat the process not once or a few times but dozens of times per game, thousands over a season. Despite having only middling 17% usage (7^th on his own team), Kyle Lowry still touched the ball over a thousand times in the 2023 playoffs, as an example. Whether or not a guard is a true lead initiator, they are going to be making countless decisions for your team.

Nick Smith Jr., Amari Bailey and Sidy Cissoko all make decisions in vastly different ways, which mixes differently for each of them with their differentiated skillsets. Sidy Cissoko is tall and strong for a guard but a poor shooter, Nick Smith Jr. is shorter and very skinny but a great shooter, Amari Bailey falls in between for all three traits.

Their playing cadences are vastly different, with NSJ being an elixir, playing like white blood cells seeking out weaknesses; Sidy is a maniac, unpredictable-squared; Amari Bailey is consistent in effort first and last. All are deviants from the expected in their own ways: given Nick Smith’s elite touch and handle creativity, one would expect him to be a pure hooper. Sidy one could easily cast aside as an unreliable project. Amari’s consistency of effort could prevent an analyst from noticing the flairs of upside.

My source of comfort in ranking them highly varies for each of them, as well. But it is consistent in one thing: the route-making of offensive schemes has always been a jagged line rather than a straight one. The ideal basketball play is a run to the basket and dunk, or run to the three point line and swish. But with the constancy of movement and ten athletes making decisions simultaneously, the way forward is rarely straight through.

This section is a dedication to the basketball weirdos, or irregularities in subtle ways. Amari Bailey may seem like the outlier in his inclusion, as Sidy and NSJ’s funkiness jump off the page. But Amari covers a ridiculous amount of ground as an athlete, both laterally and vertically, the type of athlete which would thrive as a cornerback or an outfielder or tennis player or…really anything. But Bailey plays subtly, workmanlike to the point of nearly hiding this fact. One is used to athletes of Bailey’s versatility taking up usage wherever they can, testing the limits of the dynamic fun that it must be to have those tools at one’s disposal. But Bailey, for whatever reason, does not seem to care about all of that, or else finds such enjoyment from applying them, not bluntly nor florid, but simply so. That aspect is maybe the easiest to look over: someone simply doing their job for its own sake. Especially in a freshman one-and-done, highly touted from a celebrity program. Don’t miss it with Amari.

Role Reducers: Priority UDFAs

Craig Porter Jr. (my #33), Adama Sanogo (#38), Terquavion Smith (#36), Justyn Mutts (#42), Ricky Council IV (#43), Taevion Kinsey (#45), D’Moi Hodge (#46)

Here we have a group of undrafted players I had ranked in my top 50. I’m not sure if there’s a common thread here beyond role players who I believe have a shot of being starters, even if miniscule.

All have their quick pitches as NBA role players: Porter Jr. makes sense as a defensive play-maker and creative passer next to a high usage guard. Sanogo if a team wants to run a five-out scheme on either end with a hybrid big. Terq is the obvious, nuclear pull-up shooting threat. Mutts is one of the best passing big wings in the country. Council had perhaps the best slashing tools in college hoops. Kinsey may be the most unusual, a stellar athlete ball custodian type with funky shot. D’Moi Hodge the cleanest role fit, and the most surprising undrafted for that reason as a steals & threes maven.

I mention the concept of “false ceiling” prospects, a term I coined to mean prospect commonly seen as low ceiling but with tougher-to-see avenues to outperform those expectations. I believe this entire group qualifies, let’s run through the list again. Porter Jr. does not make sense as a shotblocker, at 6’2’’ putting up a 5% block rate (one of every 20 opponent two pointers) while only fouling 2.3 times per 40(!!!). Sanogo has rare touch, shooting 77% at the rim on gigantic volume and above average everywhere else. Terq has become underrated as a passer, improving his A:TO from 1.2 to 1.9 and assist rate from 14% to 23%, all while shooting 14 threes per 100 possessions. Mutts is a rare breed, a strength-based wing with soft passing touch, perfect for motion-based, precise systems. Council’s athleticism shines in transition where he can improvise to the hoop for an acrobatic finish, at 1.2ppp on 114 transition attempts. Kinsey played in a lower conference, but that may mask his NBA athleticism, dunking over 200 times across his five college seasons. Hodge is underrated in his aggressiveness, with over 100 rim attempts finished at a 72% rate this past season.

The entire group are sophomores or older and non-premium selections as UDFAs, as it is safe to say you won’t build your team around this group. But if I were to bet on anyone undrafted ending up a useable starter at some point in their careers, it would be from this crew. The avenue to that happening has been laid out roughly in their previous spots, but amplified by further conforming to a reduced role and playing with greater talent around them.

Lessons of the Past

The 2022 draft cycle I spent obsessed with archetypes, attempting to break down the roles on the court into four: 1. Rim Protectors, 2. Connectors, 3. Shotmakers and 4. Engines. As I felt already by the time that draft day arrived, this approach had clear shortcomings. Prospects are not fully formed into their archetypes yet, and flashes of potential can be more important than fully fleshed out skills.

My three biggest misses all came from this too narrow of a sorting process. For Walker Kessler, I zoomed in too far on his inconsistent rim protection footwork technique, missing how he was blocking a gargantuan quantity of shots despite it due to advanced hand-eye coordination, size and effort. He also was able to quiet my mobility concerns by slimming down some, bringing us to another point of analysis: at the ages of prospects, they are still getting used to their athletic bodies.

Jalen Williams is another illustration of this, showcasing a major athletic leap from Santa Clara to the pros. The tape transformed almost overnight, as before when his closeouts lagged and he may have settled as a table-setter, now he looks a full power primary. The signal here was the Combine scrimmages, where J-Dub adapted to a more off-ball slashing role the second he hit the floor, using his plus wingspan to dunk in traffic with ease. The archetypes system over-fit for his Santa Clara role, not adaptive enough to appreciate his flashes of elite versatility.

Finally, a player I was too high on: Johnny Davis. At the risk of reacting too early, Johnny appears at the nexus of both of these points as well. From an archetype approach, JD is interesting. He was super physical in college, capable of some dribbling, passing, shooting, if not dominant anywhere. But he looked like he could carry a large load, and had enough clips of looking like a dynamic athlete, all the while fighting hard on the defensive end. The script has completely flipped between him and J-Dub, as Davis has been losing on the margins at the first line and without tools to salvage missteps. Where before he looked like a potential to hit in multiple archetypes, now he looks more like a mediocre prospect for each. The difference in athletic and skill profile from NCAA to NBA makes previous roles potentially untenable while also opening up new avenues for what were only flashes before.

Lessons for the Future

My goal this past cycle was to take a more holistic approach to a player’s basketball narrative. Where are they in their own cycle? A draft cycle involves only 6-8 months of new tape to indicate what a player might be for an entire career, and we need to imbue that with the appropriate lack of certainty. Imagination is the name of the game for draft work, something I’ve reminded myself constantly this past year, and helped me to be more comfortable with the one-eye-closed upside swings. Similarly, I have been keener to extrapolate those flashes out, as a player’s developmental trajectory can be as dynamic as their playing style.

The one item that remains elusive to me is projecting athletic profiles to the future. Already in Summer League I see a potential miss in Keyonte George, adapting quickly to weight loss with a more explosive playing style than we saw at Baylor or IMG. Athletic projection, again, a source of my miss on all of Kessler, J-Dub and (in the other direction) Johnny Davis, requires a technical level of biomechanical knowledge I have not attained. We have in our sights a theme for the 2024 cycle: how does the body develop amid intense athletic demands, and how can you tell who can incorporate these changes better than others? Stay tuned.

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

The Wemby Tier

1. Victor Wembanyama, Big, Metropolitans 92

As much as I loved them as prospects, this is why you can’t call guys like Cade Cunningham, Evan Mobley, and Chet Holmgren generational. Because if you do, what in God’s name do you call Victor Wembanyama? Once in a lifetime? Once in an epoch? I don’t even know what to say about Wemby that hasn’t already been said a hundred times. We have never seen someone as tall as Wemby (7’5) move as fluidly as he does while displaying touch from every area of the floor. Oh and by the way, he also anchored the number two defense in France and led his team to their first ever finals appearance as a 19 year old. 

Let’s start with Wemby’s defense. No one is safe against Wemby in the paint. He uses his 8’0 wingspan to block shots at an absurd rate (9.7 BLK% this year). Rim protection has always been Wemby’s best skill, as he led the Euroleague in blocks as an 18 year old with ASVEL last year. Wemby’s unique physical makeup allows him to block and alter shots that no one has ever been able to. That play where he was backpedaling in transition, flipped his hips, and blocked an alley-oop is just one of many examples of Wemby using his otherworldly tools functionally on defense. He covers a lot of ground in the halfcourt too. He often finds himself in positions that would leave most bigs out of the play, only to swoop in and bother the shot. He does stuff like this while only averaging 2.1 fouls per game as well! The discipline Wemby shows to not get sloppy when protecting the rim is remarkable. Wemby is going to be a killer drop defender in the NBA, but he also shows proficiency at the level of ball screens. He slides with perimeter players and gives them problems with his length. Wemby’s hands are also surprisingly quick. He occasionally strips ball handlers and can initiate the ensuing transition opportunities. Given his tools, smarts, and pedigree on defense, I feel comfortable projecting Wemby to be contending for DPOY awards throughout his career.

Then there is the offense. Turn on any highlight tape or game of Wemby’s, and you will see jaw-dropping shot-creation and dribble combinations that you can never quite believe a 7’5 player is uncorking. His move from ASVEL to Metropolitans 92 allowed him more freedom to explore his shotmaking, which likely dragged down his percentages, but helped his long term development. As I am writing, he has only shot 27.6 from three this season, which is the one hair in the soup for Wemby’s statistical profile. But, I am not worried about that. Given the degree of difficulty on some of these shots and his natural touch (81.3 FT%), it’s pretty safe to say that Wemby is going to shoot. The Spurs should trust him as both a catch and shoot threat and an isolation scorer from day one. His work in the midrange is deadly, especially his turnaround jumper, which no one can feasibly block. Wemby also hits stepback threes with regularity, and he might be the player who officially ushers the three point floater into the game of basketball. Once again, this man is 7’5!  

Wemby’s passing stands out too. He needs to clean up his turnovers by acting on his decisions quicker and not telegraphing his passes. But, he can pass off a live dribble and hit cutters and spot up shooters accurately. Wemby is also great at hitting the dunker’s spot in short roll situations. I wouldn’t describe him as a manipulative passer, but he won’t need manipulation to be an effective playmaker. He finds the open man following double teams with ease, and he will only improve his more advanced reads with time. Wemby posted 99 assists and 121 turnovers this season (0.82 AST:TO), an encouraging ratio for a big man prospect in Europe. For reference, Marc Gasol had a 0.9 AST:TO ratio in his pre-draft year, and he was the best big man passer in the league until a certain Serbian showed up. Wemby should only improve as a playmaker over time. 

Are there flaws in Wemby’s game? Sure. He can’t quite punish height mismatches in the post by backing them down, and instead has to rely on shooting over them every single time. Again, his 3P% has to increase, which his FT% and the eye test already suggest will happen. It feels weird to even discuss this stuff because these flaws won’t matter in the grand scheme of things. They certainly will not prevent him from being the obvious choice at number one. The other discussion surrounding Wemby is what his frame will mean for his NBA longevity. There’s no ignoring the truth: players above a certain height have had trouble staying healthy in years past. Former number one picks Ralph Sampson (7’4) and Yao Ming (7’6) were the consensus choices at the time, but knee, back, and foot injuries prevented them from having long careers. But, Wemby and his camp seem to have taken these cautionary tales into account and have worked diligently on his body. At this point, Wemby’s long and detailed warm-up routine is well documented. If he suffers a career setback due to injury, it won’t be because he neglected to address potential medical issues. 

Not only is Wemby the obvious choice at number one, he is by far the best prospect I have evaluated in my time as an armchair scout. He is the prize of the last ten drafts, and is likely to be the prize of the next ten drafts. With his combination of size, fluidity, scoring, playmaking, and elite defensive potential, there’s no telling how good Wemby can become. The Spurs have once again lucked into the big man prospect of the decade, and he will vault them into contention within the next few years. 

Tier 1

2. Scoot Henderson, Guard, G League Ignite

He doesn’t hold a candle to Wemby, but Scoot Henderson is a great prospect in his own right and by far the next best swing for stardom in this class. For starters, Scoot’s per 100 line in the G League is ridiculous, as he put up 27.5 points, 7.9 rebounds, 10.2 assists, 1.9 steals, and 5.1 turnovers. Scoot is a force when his motor is fully revved up. Even though he stands at only 6’2, Scoot is built like a semi truck. He boasts a 6’9 wingspan in addition to his chiseled 200 pound frame, which ought to quell any concerns about his size at the next level (yes, some people are actually concerned about this for some reason). He uses his powerful frame to brush off contact and finish with ease. Scoot also has some craft around the rim, utilizing reverses as well as changing up his body angles and timing with his footwork. When he has a head of steam, Scoot threatens to posterize rim protectors

Scoot’s shot, while a work in progress, projects to be an asset at the next level. He shot 32.4% from three in his regular season and showcase games, in addition to an even 75 percent from the line. Scoot is not comfortable shooting off the dribble from three yet. Some people are skeptical that he will get there. But, in his higher end outcomes, I think a pull up three is very attainable. Teams will go under on ball screens at the start of Scoot’s career until he can reliably punish teams for doing so. He will have more time to get his pull up three off in these situations, and he can concentrate on speeding up the decision to shoot as he improves his efficiency there. 

Where Scoot thrives is in the midrange. I love how polished Scoot is setting up these shots. He takes what the defense gives him in drop coverage, and his pull up is an effective counter on drives to the basket. He settles for too many jumpers from there rather than attacking the rim, but the concern over this phenomenon is overblown with Scoot. Sam Vecenie of The Athletic brought forth the idea that Scoot phoned in his rim attacks and contact seeking in order to avoid injury. I think there’s some credence to this idea. The G-League Ignite program is all about securing a high draft pick for these prospects, not necessarily competing at the highest level. So, you can hardly blame Scoot for taking his foot off the gas when he solidified his status as a lock for the top three. 

Because of this, improvements to Scoot’s scoring game inside the arc are imminent. I suspect he will find himself at the rim and the free throw line much more starting from early in his career. Shot selection issues almost never derail prospects with the physical tools of Scoot’s caliber. When their coaches emphasize getting to the efficient spots they can relentlessly attack, these players usually adjust. Look at how quickly Anthony Edwards dialed up his rim pressure in the NBA; I think Scoot will undergo a similar development process. 

Scoot also makes virtually every pass in the book. An AST:TO ratio of 2 and 10.2 AST per 100 demonstrate how advanced of a passer Scoot is for his age. He collapses defenses and sprays the ball to shooters off a live dribble. He is creative with his interior passes, as he expertly manipulates bigs in the paint on dump offs and lobs. Weakside skip passes have become necessary for NBA primaries, and Scoot already shows aptitude in that department. With his physical tools and quick decision making, he’s going to be a transition nightmare as well. 

Defensively, Scoot has the tools to be good, but there’s a ton he needs to clean up. When he’s on, Scoot navigates screens well on the ball, and he gets into ball handlers and disrupts them. But, his tape contained a ton of preventable blowbys where he was barely in a stance. This is hardly atypical for a young primary initiator, but you’d hope to see a little more from Scoot given his physical tools. Off the ball, Scoot got caught ball watching too much, and his steal rate of 1.9 per 100 doesn’t sway me in a positive direction here. His closeouts could use a great deal of improvement as well. I have no doubt that Scoot’s defense will improve as his career goes on, but the degree of improvement remains to be seen. 

Scoot’s athleticism, projectable jump shot, advanced passing, and reported intangibles make him an excellent primary initiator bet. Primary initiators are the players we think of as stars in the NBA. This makes Scoot the clear-cut number two prospect in this draft. Charlotte, don’t mess this up. 

Tier 2

In the past, my Tier 2 has been reserved for prospects who are confident All-Star bets with a chance to deservedly command a max contract down the line. Obviously, Wemby and Scoot both slotted in above this tier. I believe Scoot can make All-NBA teams down the line. Wemby, well, nothing is off the table for him. After these two prospects, the talent drops off significantly in my eyes. Don’t get me wrong, there are still plenty of great prospects with star upside in this class. But, they are much less obvious from here on out. Thus, I don’t feel confident enough in anyone else to put them in Tier 2 or above. Let’s move on. 

Tier 3

3. Cam Whitmore, Wing, Villanova

I still can’t really believe I am doing this, but here it is. Cam Whitmore at three – the same Cam Whitmore who seemingly averaged one pass per game at Villanova. If you read my last article, first of all, thank you. Second of all, you know that Cam Whitmore has what I call a compounding skills profile. “Compounding skills” refers to a development pathway many great players have undergone: a raw and fluid athlete who builds on flashes of perimeter skill until they are a complete offensive player. Make no mistake, Whitmore has as big a learning curve as any compounding skills prospect I have seen. His 6.4 AST% is historically low, and the efficiency of his pull up game leaves a lot to be desired. And yet, there have been too many compounding skills success stories for me to put Whitmore any lower than this. With compounding skills prospects, we are shooting for a fairly complete offensive player down the line. But, as I said, Whitmore’s passing and off the dribble game are clearly not where they need to be. So, what am I betting on with Whitmore? 

First off, he has a lot of time on his side with a July 2004 birthday. He’s a year and a half younger than the Thompson twins and close to two full years younger than Brandon Miller, three players who are often mocked higher than Whitmore. That age difference has gone underdiscussed throughout this draft cycle. Secondly, Whitmore is a mutant of an athlete. His preference for two-foot leaping could present some initial bumps in the road around the rim. But, it’s hard to get hung up on that when Whitmore has the best speed/power combination I’ve seen since Anthony Edwards. At 6’6, 230, Whitmore is a downhill force. His flashes as a driver are special. He can get downhill and completely displace defenders. Even against good on-ball defenders, he can easily get his shoulder past them and finish through contact. Whitmore has legitimate touch around the rim and can utilize a lot of finishing angles when his initial plan is cut off. 

Additionally, Whitmore has enough perimeter skill to suggest that he can become a great three-level scorer down the line. I think his handle is underrated. He keeps the ball under control on drives, and he already has some go-to moves to create shots for himself, including a polished stepback. The shot itself looks good to me. He shot 34.3 percent from three on 9.4 attempts per 100, which for his age is actually pretty encouraging. Many of these shots came from comfortably outside NBA range as well. He only shot 70.3 percent from the line, but I trust Whitmore’s mechanics and the deep range he already possesses will make him a trustworthy shooter at the next level. 

Whitmore’s shot selection is a Moreyball dream. He exclusively operates at the rim and from three, which probably inflated his 55.1 eFG% (good number for an 18 year old college wing). This ought to help him as a play finisher in his first couple years in the NBA, but if he is going to become an on-ball scorer, he’ll likely need to develop a midrange game. His attempts at pull ups or floaters inside the arc were rare, and when they occurred it didn’t look pretty. Whitmore has some serious work to do here, but he has the time to get it done. Passing is the other glaring weakness in Whitmore’s game. I’ve already mentioned his woeful 6.4 AST%, and his slow processing prevents him from creating more advantages for himself and others. Whitmore would benefit tremendously from eliminating that extra beat that he takes every time he gets the ball before deciding what to do. I’ve liked some of the passing flashes I’ve seen from him, he executed some nice live dribble dump offs and the occasional skip pass. But, they were flashes in every sense of the word. If you blinked, you might have missed them. 

Defensively, Whitmore has serious flashes to build on going forward. He can be a terror on the ball, using his strength and lateral quickness to get into ball handlers and guard multiple positions. While his team defense is messy right now, Whitmore still nabbed 3.2 steals per 100 and showed some amazing weak side rim protection. Historically, scouts have gotten burned when talking about prospects like Whitmore defensively. They get hung up on the effort level when the tools are so clearly there. Andrew Wiggins and Anthony Edwards are two examples of compounding skills players who were deservedly flamed for their defensive effort (in Wiggins’ case, comfortably into his NBA career). But, they turned into excellent defensive stoppers. You want to bet on the talent and tools combo every single time, and Whitmore has both in spades defensively. 

I’ll close with a principle that I solidified back in 2020 because of Anthony Edwards: with young and powerful athletes, focus on the flashes. If these prospects can do something once, chances are they can do it again until they make it a habit. Before you know it, you have an All-Star on your team. Developing Whitmore is going to require patience. But, if he follows the compounding skills trajectory I expect him to, he can turn into the two-way wing shot creator that NBA teams crave.

4. Jarace Walker, Forward, Houston

Those who follow my work will know that I have talked about Jarace Walker ad nauseam. My false ceiling alarm bells went off early in the college season, and I haven’t shifted my position since. Jarace was a key contributor on both ends to a Houston team that finished number one in pre-tournament KenPom rankings. He had an eye-popping statline of 25.2 points, 15.2 rebounds, 4 assists, 2.2 steals, and 2.9 blocks per 100 possessions. That high level impact on the box score was good for an 8.8 BPM as well. 

We know what Jarace can do as a connector, and I expect him to contribute in a similar manner from the jump in the NBA. It’s rare to find a 6’7, 240 pound forward who processes the game as quickly as Jarace does. Look no further than his passing, where he seems to always find holes in the defense and exploit them. The ball never sticks with Jarace. He has a knack for keeping the ball moving and optimizing the offensive possession for his team. He only averaged 3.3 turnovers per 100 relative to his four assists, only reaffirming Jarace’s top tier court mapping and lightning quick decision making. His short roll passing is outstanding, and if you need someone to just stand at the nail and make decisions, Jarace is that guy. 

Additionally, Jarace is an amazing defender. I already mentioned his stock numbers, which were so good because of his unbelievable team defense. He flies out of nowhere to block shots regularly, and he can read ball handlers and play the passing lanes brilliantly. As a help side rim protecting four, Jarace has the potential to make a huge impact. Even though he is just 6’7, Jarace also showed some coverage versatility as the roll man defender in ball screens. Houston trusted him to hedge ball screens, drop, play at the level, pretty much everything. I want to reiterate that Houston was KenPom’s number one team and number one defense before the tournament. The fact that Jarace had this large of a role in both those rankings as a freshman has been another underdiscussed talking point this draft cycle. On the ball, Jarace’s hips can be a bit slow, so he is susceptible to quick changes of direction. But, he’s light on his feet, and he uses his fast hands to jar the ball loose and earn transition opportunities. He might not be an elite wing stopper, but Jarace has enough to build on for his on-ball defense. 

The degree to which Jarace’s scoring game develops will dictate his upside. At 25.1 points per 100, he was far from a non-scorer in college. But, he was reluctant to attack the rim, and he wasn’t super efficient away from the rim either. There are certainly justifiable concerns with how Jarace is going to score in the NBA. However, Jarace’s placement on my board should indicate that I believe he’s going to find a way to score. 

For starters, I think Jarace is going to shoot. Last season, he shot 34.7 percent from three and 66.3 percent from the line, hardly a resounding point in his favor. But, Jarace’s mechanical improvements from his senior year of high school to college were remarkable. He also shows good touch in the short midrange areas, especially with that floater that he loves. I always cite unassisted two point jumpers as a strong indicator for shooting when traditional indicators fail, and Jarace hit 30 of them. I love the direction Jarace’s shot is headed, and his elite processing indicates that he has the neuroplasticity required for further development. I can’t help but project Jarace as a reliable catch and shoot threat at the very least. I also don’t think self-creation is out of the question in Jarace’s high end outcomes. We’ve seen guys who specialize in the close midrange area at the college level slowly develop their isolation scoring. What’s awesome is that Houston gave Jarace iso opportunities throughout the season, and he delivered in some key moments. As a UVA fan, I remember him cooking us with fadeaways down the stretch all too well. 

It’s difficult to see how Jarace fails in the NBA. Teams always look for players in Jarace’s mold: smart and versatile wings who can impact the game in many different ways. The floor is incredibly high here, and Jarace will be afforded opportunities to experiment and add to his game as a result. I’d be shocked if Jarace does not find himself playing in high stakes games for at least a decade in the NBA. 

5. Taylor Hendricks, Forward, UCF

Taylor Hendricks: false ceiling prospect number two in this draft. Hendricks had a truly meteoric rise this year. He went from number 46 in the RSCI rankings to a consensus lottery pick and the fifth player on my board. I understand if you are skeptical of ranking Hendricks this high. But, let me ask you something: how many prospects in recent memory have met Hendricks’ thresholds of youth, size, shooting, athleticism, and incredible defense? It’s not that many, right? There’s Jabari Smith last year, and the next one I can think of is Jaren Jackson. I wasn’t scouting prospects in 2018, but I know that Jaren was clearly a better prospect than both Jabari Smith and Taylor Hendricks. These are not direct comparisons. The point is that using Hendricks as a threshold for the categories above sets the bar quite high.. 

The first thing that stands out about Hendricks is his size and shooting combo. At 6’9, 215 pounds, Hendricks shot 39.4 percent from three on eight attempts per 100 and 78.2 percent from the line. He shoots a comfortable ball with a high release point that is tough to contest. Similarly to Jarace Walker, Hendricks has greatly improved his jump shot since high school. He only shot 31.2% from three in his last two years of high school and EYBL play (hat tip to Maxwell Baumbach, @BaumBoards on Twitter for that stat). To go from that to nearly 40 percent is quite impressive, and the free throw percentage suggests that it is sustainable. The high release point and touch could lend themselves to improvements off the dribble as well. This process played out with guys like Khris Middleton, Kawhi Leonard, and Mikal Bridges. 

Hendricks’ athleticism also stands out, and he already uses it functionally as an off ball player on offense. He excels as a cutter and playing out of the dunker’s spot, as demonstrated by his 36 dunks on the year. While still a work in progress, Hendricks’ flashes of attacking closeouts have looked good too. I trust that to continue being a weapon for him as NBA defenders begin to respect his shot. The drawbacks with Hendricks offensively are his handle and playmaking ability. I love the functional athleticism, but his loose handle sometimes prevents him from fully taking advantage of his gifts. I think Hendricks’ current handle woes lead to some of his difficulties with unassisted looks at the rim, which has been a common criticism of Hendricks. Guys with Hendricks’ athleticism often experience improvements to their handle, and improvement as a dribbler will help Hendricks attack the rim off the dribble efficiently.  

Hendricks also isn’t much of a passer at this stage, and he unfortunately does not have the first step of someone like Cam Whitmore which lends itself to passing improvement. He is limited to fairly basic reactive reads, only processing what’s happening in his direct field of vision. Hendricks averaged 2.4 assists per 100 and 2.5 turnovers. I like that his AST:TO ratio is around one, but that’s a small amount of assists relative to his usage. I suspect that Hendricks’ passing will be another beneficiary of an improved handle, but the degree of improvement remains to be seen. 

Where Hendricks really shines is on defense. I honestly think he is on a similar level to Jarace Walker on that end. He used his size, verticality, and timing to be a force of a helpside rim protector. Hendricks averaged 3.0 blocks per 100 and only 3.5 fouls. He already has an advanced verticality technique, and he uses his frame and leaping ability to stifle drivers at the rim. Hendricks can cover an insane amount of ground on these rotations too. This allows him to close out to shooters from further away than most players as well. Additionally, Hendricks will guard anyone you need him to on the perimeter. He has fluid hips, slides his feet, and likes to get close to ball handlers and bother them with his length. Unlike Jarace, I’m not sure I trust Hendricks to be the roll man defender in ball screens. His role is going to be a wing stopper and help defender, and I think he will excel. 

Closing the loop here, I want to share a Barttorvik query I stumbled upon. Do you want to know the only two freshmen in that database to have an eFG% > 55, BLK% > 5, 3PA/100 > 7, and over 30 dunks? Taylor Hendricks and Jaren Jackson Jr. That is it. I mentioned the traits of youth, size, shooting, athleticism, and defense. I also mentioned that Hendricks sets an incredibly high bar for those attributes. The eye test informed that take, but a statistical search using numbers close to Hendricks’ marks corroborated it. Hendricks will thrive in a 3&D role immediately, and if you think that is where a 19 year old kid will stop his development, you are sorely mistaken. If Hendricks is drafted in the 7-14 range, he has a chance to be a steal in this draft.  

6. Brandon Miller, Wing, Alabama

As a 6’9 freshman, Brandon Miller was arguably the best perimeter player in college basketball this past year. He was a consensus All-American and led Alabama to the overall number one seed in the NCAA tournament. His 12.0 BPM led all freshmen in the country. Oh, and he did this all with a skillset that directly translates to the NBA, having shot 38.4 percent from three on 12.6 attempts per 100. So, what’s he doing here and not comfortably ranked third? 

First, there’s the issue of his age. I alluded to it earlier, but Miller is OLD for a freshman. A November 2002 birthday will make him 20.6 years old on draft night. He’s only three months younger than TCU junior guard Mike Miles! Taylor Hendricks is a year younger to the day than Brandon Miller; Jarace Walker is ten months younger; Cam Whitmore is almost two years younger. I could keep going. That age difference really matters when considering the development curves of these prospects. 

Second, while the production can’t be denied, I’m not sure I trust Miller to be an effective on-ball star in the NBA. He doesn’t have the functional strength or flexibility that the game’s best wing creators have. He isn’t all that bursty, and he struggles as soon as he faces a lot of contact in the lane. According to Synergy, Miller shot 39.3 percent at the rim in the half court, which is…not ideal. He lacks craft around the rim and the aforementioned athletic limitations hinder him in that area too. Miller also only shot 33.3% from the midrange, albeit on mostly unassisted looks. Miller found a way to produce and impact winning at a high level despite his limitations inside the arc, in large part due to the fact that he was a flamethrower from three. I already mentioned the volume and efficiency, and it’s worth noting that Miller can splash in shots from deep off the catch, off movement, or off the dribble. The ball comes out flat on his shot, but you can’t argue with the results. An 85.9 FT% on 170 total attempts this season only provides further evidence for Miller’s outside shooting aptitude.

Miller also dramatically improved as a dribbler and passer throughout the season. His handle can be a bit high and loose, but Alabama trusted him to initiate offense more as the season went on. He operated in ball screens and could make good passes with either hand. I also really liked Miller as a fast break initiator, where he pushes the pace and finds open teammates quickly. In order for Miller to run pick and roll in the NBA, he needs to improve the velocity and accuracy of his passes. Some of Miller’s passes were wild, especially early on, but I like that he tightened up his passes as the season went on. 

Defensively, Miller projects as solid but not spectacular. I can’t think of one standout skill for Miller on this end. He didn’t generate a lot of stocks or completely hound guys on the ball. But, his rotations were sound, he held up just fine on the ball, and he rarely made any egregious mistakes. Miller didn’t wow me like Walker and Hendricks did, but I trust him to be a neutral to slightly positive defender at the next level. 

Miller is a weirdly tough evaluation. Normally, I’d see a freshman who produced at the level Miller did and put him in Tier 1 or Tier 2 without thinking twice. That seems to be what the NBA has done. However, when you dig deeper, it’s hard to project Miller as a quality star player. Does he have the functional strength, bend, balance, or craft to create inside the arc in the NBA? Is his handle good enough to earn on-ball reps in the NBA? If not, what exactly is he at the next level? The answer there is a ridiculous wing shooter with some tertiary playmaking capabilities and competent defense. That’s a great player to have, but we’re not talking about the next Paul George here. There’s no question that Miller is a great basketball player, and I am valuing his high floor here with the list of sure things dwindling quickly. But, I can’t get as excited about his upside as the NBA seems to be. 

7. Cason Wallace, Guard, Kentucky

Cason Wallace seems to have fallen on mainstream boards, but I am not reacting to that. People are getting hung up on his size and projected role, a 3&D guard. Pencling him into this role ignores an important question: are we sure this guy is only a 3&D guard? At only 6’3, Wallace will mostly be the smallest guy on the floor in effective lineups. He will absolutely be able to play that role, A closer look indicated that Wallace might be able to bear a greater offensive load down the line. 

For starters, Wallace finished well at the rim. He could stand to get there more often, but he shot a whopping 71.2% at the rim, with just 9.2% of those looks being assisted, according to Barttorvik. Wallace also finished with 11 dunks on the season, an indicator that Wallace is underrated as an athlete. Wallace could be passive at times, and he was playing hurt for a portion of the season. None of that helped him shine as an athlete, but I love his functional strength and deceleration on the offensive end. Outside Kentucky’s system, Wallace will have more space to operate on drives and I trust that the rim volume will increase without affecting his efficiency. 

Wallace also has enough off the dribble prowess to build on for potential primary ball handler reps. According to HoopMath, he made 40 unassisted two-point jumpers, which bodes well for Wallace’s outside shooting. Wallace’s tough shotmaking in the midrange makes me more optimistic about his shot than a fairly pedestrian 34.6 3P% and 75.7% FT% otherwise would. Another great indicator for future primaries is an AST%:USG% ratio > 1. It’s rare for players to achieve this, and Wallace hit that ratio comfortably with a 24.3 AST% to a 19.9 USG%. For someone who’s almost exclusively labeled a combo guard, Wallace checks a lot of boxes for a pure point guard prospect. 

Additionally, Wallace’s defense is incredible. His 6’9 wingspan allows him to play bigger than his size both on and off the ball. Off the ball, Wallace’s screen navigation, anticipation, and rotations are top notch. His 3.7 steals per 100 (historically great rate for a freshman guard) reflect that aptitude. On the ball, Wallace terrorizes ball handlers with his lateral quickness, fast hands, and functional strength. It’s nearly impossible for ball handlers to overpower Wallace, and he is the most disruptive point-of-attack defender in this class as well. That’s a pretty good combination!

Honestly, there aren’t many bones to pick with Wallace. I wish he could separate from defenders more and generate easier looks. I wish he was a little more assertive and willing to command the offense more. Also, while Wallace meets many basic thresholds for skills like shooting off the dribble and attacking the rim, he is far from elite in those areas. It’s possible that the small sample size of one season inflated his numbers there and we don’t have a clear picture. 

See? I’m already grasping at straws while trying to nitpick. Wallace can capably dribble, pass, make great decisions, shoot from the midrange and three, and defend at an elite level. A Marcus Smart 3&D+ outcome is very attainable for him. Plus, who knows? Maybe Wallace is next in a long line of Kentucky guards whose potential was hidden under Coach Calipari. 

8. Leonard Miller, Forward, G-League Ignite

The departure from consensus continues! Leonard Miller is easily the most underrated player in the 2023 class. I made the elevator pitch for Miller in my last article, so I want to quote myself here: 

As a 19 year old, Leonard Miller put up a per 100 statline of 28.0 points, 17.1 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1.4 steals, and 1.2 blocks. You could argue he’s had the best statistical season of any G-League Ignite prospect in the team’s history, including Scoot and Jalen Green! This was all as a raw prospect who was playing his first real stint of high level basketball coming off of an enigmatic high school career. But wait, it gets better. He was efficient (64 TS%) and he only averaged 2.3 turnovers per 100, putting his AST:TO ratio on the right side of one. 

What’s crazy is that when you watch Miller play, it seems like there is so much he can improve upon. This is what made me high on Tari Eason last year. He was able to have a highly productive season while still leaving a lot of meat on the bone for skill development. […] These guys are always good bets because they are often among the best functional athletes in their draft class, which gives them a nice baseline as the rest of their game develops. Miller is no different. I think he’s a no-brainer top ten guy in this class. 

A couple things to add here. First, addressing the concern of Miller’s shot. There’s no question the mechanics are wonky. His lower body is all over the place, and his upper body often has to contort itself to stay in alignment. This results in an impractical shooting motion, and it had a lot to do with his 30.4 percent clip from three in the Regular Season and Showcase games. The good news is Leonard has real touch. He shot 79.2 percent from the line and showed amazing touch finishing at the rim. When projecting shooting, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to guys with touch, and Miller has it. The fact that he shot as well as he did with those mechanics might actually be a point in his favor.  

Some people also seem concerned with what role Miller will have in the NBA. My answer to that right now: I have no idea. My best guess is he starts out as an energy guy who finishes at the rim, makes good decisions, and plays defense. As his career progresses, he’ll earn more responsibilities than that, and the shot will ultimately dictate how much room Miller has to grow. I’m not a coach, and I’ll own up to the fact that I’m not sure what the specific plan should be for Leonard Miller early on. However, I am confident that there is a role for a 6’10 functionally athletic, coordinated, and smart two-way player with budding perimeter skills. I trust an NBA coach to find that role. 

You don’t see a prospect with Leonard Miller’s development curve every draft cycle. He was a guard who had a late growth spurt. He went from playing against unremarkable Canadian high school competition to thriving against grown men in the G-League within a year. That’s incredible. It also helps that everyone who’s in the know says that Miller is an unbelievable human being who’s hungry to learn and get better. You want Leonard Miller on your basketball team. Draft him with confidence. 

9. Gradey Dick, Wing, Kansas

The easy sales pitch for Gradey Dick is he’s 6’8 and has been a 40 percent three point shooter since he got his learner’s permit. His pristine mechanics, touch, high release point, and shot versatility make him one of the best shooting prospects I’ve evaluated. As far as his basic shooting numbers go, 40.3 3P% on 10.0 attempts per 100 and 85.4 percent at the line in his lone season at Kansas. 

Everyone knows about the shooting, but Gradey’s unheralded ancillary skills on offense really stand out. Chief among them is his cutting. Gradey weaponizes his shooting gravity to lure defenders close and decisively cut behind them. Gradey generates lots of easy rim attempts in this way, and he uses clever body control and angles to finish. Don’t sleep on Gradey’s vertical pop following a backdoor cut either. When he builds up a head of steam, he’s a threat to finish emphatically above the rim off a lob pass. His 15 dunks on the season back that up. 

Additionally, Gradey’s passing is underrated. He won’t be a primary initiator, but Gradey can pick teams apart coming off curls or attacking closeouts. He makes quick reads and rarely misses an extra pass. Gradey will occasionally fit the ball through tight windows in transition, and he made a couple nice weakside skips when nothing else was on. With regards to those skip passes, Gradey usually executed them after surveying the court for a few seconds. He rarely uncorked those off of pure instinct. That doesn’t matter too much though. Gradey is fantastic at simple passes and the movement off of them required for functioning in an NBA offense. For those wondering about his AST:TO ratio, it was comfortably above one at 1.25. 

Defensively, some scouts have completely written Gradey off. Personally, I am a bit more optimistic. I share the concerns about Gradey’s athleticism with everyone else. He needs to get much stronger in order to absorb contact, and quicker players have their way with Gradey when they make him move laterally. However, I think Gradey has a chance to make up for his physical limitations with smarts and effort. His 0.8 BLK% doesn’t jump off the page, but I thought Gradey flashed really good verticality technique and use of his length around the rim. His rotations tend to be good too, even if the athleticism takes away some of their efficacy. Gradey has quick hands too, which makes him effective on digs and occasionally surprising guys at the point of attack. A 2.5 STL% reflects these skills.  

Overall, I like the way that Swish Theory’s own Matt Powers described Gradey Dick: “he will be your team’s best shooter, and not your worst defender, maybe not even second worst.” Lights out wing shooters who move well off the ball and make quick decisions are ideal complementary players on offense. That describes Gradey perfectly. The hope is that Gradey finds a role defensively that can utilize his strengths and minimize his weaknesses. If that can happen, I see Gradey starting in many high-stakes games in the future. 

Tier 3.5 – The Thompson Twins

10. Ausar Thompson, Wing, Overtime Elite

11. Amen Thompson, Guard, Overtime Elite

I said most of what I want to say about the Thompson twins in my draft strategy article, so I’ll include the relevant text here. 

Amen and Ausar Thompson are perhaps the toughest evaluations I have had in my time scouting NBA Draft prospects. After all, before we even get into the Thompsons as players, there is the league that the Thompsons play in: Overtime Elite. Overtime Elite is an enigma to say the least, as we don’t really have an idea of how players translate to the NBA from that league. Last year, Dom Barlow and Jean Montero both went undrafted. Barlow played some garbage time minutes for the Spurs and was introduced into the rotation when the ultimately successful tank for Wemby was fully on. He does have some functional athleticism to his game and could maybe turn into something. But, that remains to be seen. He’s certainly not someone I want to project the Thompsons based on. 

The other guy, Jean Montero, is actually doing quite well in the Spanish ACB. He’s averaging 17/3/4 on 54% true shooting for Real Betis. It’s possible that he’s able to come over and contribute as a backup point guard for an NBA team someday. I had Montero 40th on my board last year, so I definitely think there is some talent there. But again, hardly a needle-moving development case, at least right now. Thus, I simply do not feel comfortable with the amount of data points that we have to properly project talent from Overtime Elite into the NBA.

Then, there is the actual evaluation of the Thompson twins. They were the best of the bunch in Overtime Elite, no doubt about it. But once again, we really have no idea how that dominance is going to project to the NBA. Another one of the best players in Overtime Elite, Jazian Gortman, was invited to the NBA combine, where he did not pop in any meaningful way. Scouts are projecting here, and most are erring on the side of optimism. However, I think using a top five pick on one of the Thompsons is an extremely dicey proposition. They are quite old, as both will comfortably be 20 on draft day. At roughly the same age, Brandon Miller was a first team All-American and arguably the best perimeter player in college basketball. Looking at things in those terms, I think you could argue the Thompsons should have been a bit more dominant to earn a high spot on draft boards. I THINK. Again, I don’t know. Nobody really knows. I fully see the vision for them being good NBA players. They flash a combination of elite athleticism and passing ability that we don’t see too often. They seem like wonderful people as well with strong work ethic and maturity. But, the level of competition factor is a bit too much of a hurdle for me. 

I have also mentioned some one and done prospects who fit exactly what I am looking for in the lottery. Wemby and Scoot are obvious. But, Cam Whitmore, Jarace Walker, Brandon Miller, Taylor Hendricks, Leonard Miller, Cason Wallace, and Gradey Dick are all surefire NBA guys to me whose avenues to strong positive contribution are very attainable. Once all those guys are off the board, that’s probably when I would roll the dice on the Thompsons. The reality is that both twins will be taken before several of the guys I mentioned above, and because of that I’ll take the safer guys who also have plenty of avenues to upside. 

I recognize that this is a controversial take, so I want to say that this is only one man’s strategy, and that yours might look quite different, and that’s okay. For those who would prioritize a Thompson twin in the draft, I will say that Ausar seems like the one to target. Amen seems to be the preferred twin, but Ausar was better statistically pretty much across the board (assists, steals, blocks, impact metrics, usage, turnovers, etc.). Name a statistic; chances are Ausar came out on top. Plus, Ausar is further along as a ball handler and shooter, which bodes well for his development. Amen is projected to go top five, and rumor has it Ausar is projected to fall a bit. So the smarter move to me is to get Ausar further down the board. 

I hope I’m not being flippant by putting the Thompson twins down here and discussing them as a group. That is not my intention. This is truly how I see them stacking up in this class. Putting myself in the general managers shoes, I really like the talent that I have in spots 1-9 enough to value them over the competition-driven uncertainty that the Thompsons have are surrounding them. They both could very well be amazing and that honestly wouldn’t surprise me. However, there are enough risks that make me wary of putting them higher on my board. This is where I will roll the dice.

Tier 4

12. Kobe Bufkin, Guard, Michigan

We’re starting Tier 4 off with Kobe Bufkin, who is like diet Cason Wallace in some ways. Painting with a broad brush, they’re both likely 3&D guards who have upside to become more than that. Bufkin has more to do than Wallace in order to hit his high end outcomes. Thus, he slots in a tier below Wallace. However, he’s a great player and projects to be a solid starting guard. 

Bufkin has a September 2003 birthday, which puts him around a lot of the one-and-dones in this class. Despite his thin 6’4, 175 pound frame, Bufkin was one of the better rim finishers in the class. He converted a borderline elite 64 unassisted shots at the rim, per HoopMath. Bufkin also projects to shoot. He shot 35.5 percent from three on 6.4 attempts per 100 and 84.9 percent from the line. These numbers are good on their own, but they’re much better when you see how improved they are compared to Bufkin’s freshman year. He only had a 22.2 3P% on similar per possession volume, albeit in a small sample. I always love to see big freshman to sophomore year shooting jumps from guards. Bufkin’s floater and off the dribble game will be a weapon for him as well.   

The question is whether or not Bufkin is a point guard at the next level. He only averaged 5.1 assists per 100, low for a typical point guard prospect, and he doesn’t have the first step quickness that would allow him to develop his passing faster. However, Bufkin does flash some high level passes. He’d certainly have more assists if he was allowed to play point guard full time. Bufkin can manipulate defenders well and deliver quick passes off a live dribble. As he fills out his frame, expect Bufkin to get a lot better as a passer. 

What gives Bufkin a bit more upside than some other guards down the board is the defense. Both his STL% and BLK% were > 2, which you don’t see too often from 6’4 guards. The shot blocking in particular really surprised me. Bufkin has no fear of getting up and contesting shots at the rim. That willingness to play above his size makes me think Bufkin is more ready to withstand the physicality of the NBA than his frame would otherwise suggest. It also helps that Bufkin stays in front of his man on the ball, navigates screens, and uses his quick hands to force steals. 

Overall, I’m hard-pressed to find a glaring flaw in Bufkin’s game. When an NBA strength program takes care of filling out his frame, the shooting, solid passing, and great defense will make Bufkin a good 3&D guard. As I said before, there’s upside here too. But, you’re betting that Bufkin a) is a true point guard and b) becomes a substantially better functional athlete inside the arc for him to get there. For now, I’m penciling him in as an uber-solid starting guard down the line. 

13. Sidy Cissoko, Wing, G-League Ignite

We’ve officially entered gamble territory, folks. Cissoko has a wide range of outcomes that include not sticking around the NBA and being a championship-quality role player. Once again, I’ll draw from my draft strategy article: 

In most of my public work, I make sure to mention the checklist for the ideal draft prospect, courtesy of the original Stepien group: a 6’6+ player who can dribble, pass, shoot, make decisions, and defend. As a 6’7 wing with an April 2004 birthday, Cissoko reliably demonstrated every single skill in that list except shooting, and I don’t think it’s crazy to project him as a shooter either. 30 percent from three and 64.5 percent from the line does not initially induce optimism. But, closer inspection leads me to believe that Cissoko is going to shoot. The mechanics themselves look a lot more fluid than you would guess, and he even had some cogent flashes of versatile shotmaking in the midrange and from three. When I watch him shoot off movement and hit stepbacks, I can’t help but believe those flashes are going to become more consistent.

The reason why the list of traits mentioned above are often mentioned in the context of star prospects. But, such players often become some of the best role players in the league too. To me, this is Cissoko’s path to success. He is an excellent passer, and even has some live dribble stuff in his arsenal. Cissoko’s AST:TO ratio near two reflects his exceptional feel. He also has a functional handle, and defends wings at a high level. By the way, Cissoko averaged 3.2 stocks per 100 as an 18 year old in the G-League. His non-scoring production (the stuff that tends to matter more anyway) is elite given his age and competition level. 

I know this is one of the more overused comparisons ever, but there’s some Kyle Anderson to Cissoko’s game. Cissoko has some underrated athletic ability, but both are slower high-feel wings who just get stuff done. If Cissoko even shoots passably, he’ll be a huge steal in this draft. 

14. Jett Howard, Wing, Michigan

Jett Howard is a 6’8 wing that can really shoot the ball, having shot 36.8 percent from three on a whopping 13.6 attempts per 100. He also shot an even 80 percent from the line. You do not have to worry about the shooting at the next level. 6’8 wing who can shoot might have you picturing a typical 3&D wing, but we have to seriously worry about the defense component of that formula. 

Howard’s rates of rebounds (8.9 DRB%, 1.0 ORB%), steals (0.8 STL%) are historically low for a wing. If you search for wings of the past who were this bad in these effort-indicating stats, the list is not promising. When you watch Howard play, you can see why these stats were so low. He doesn’t make a lot happen as a team defender, and he gets cooked way too often on the ball. There isn’t really a position or type of athlete that he excels at defending, which is almost unheard of for his size. Howard has serious work to do as a defender, or else he’ll be a serious negative in the NBA. Plenty of people have faded Howard all the way to the 20s or even 30s on their board because of the defense, and I definitely understand why. 

But, we also can’t ignore Howard’s enticing dribble, pass, shoot skill set at 6’8. He has legit prowess off the dribble. He uses ball screens well and makes teams pay when they go under. The mechanics are perfect on every shot type too. I also like how he uses his handle to get to his midrange pull up. I’d like to see him get to the rim a lot more than he does, and I think that he has the handle and stride length to up his game there. Howard is also a good passer. His 1.59 AST:TO ratio is great for a 6’8 wing, and he has enough connective passing skill to function well in an NBA offense. 

Howard is a fascinating mix of enticing strengths and potentially debilitating weaknesses. There are a lot of different ways that his career could go. But, at the end of the day, I have to value a 6’8 wing with a dribble, pass, shoot skillset. Those players don’t grow on trees. If an NBA team can make Howard passable on defense, we’re talking about a really valuable player.

15. Keyonte George, Guard, Baylor

I was really high on Keyonte at the start of the season, and at one point he was fourth on my board before I really dove deep into other prospects. As you can see, I’ve soured on Keyonte quite a bit since then. If everything comes together, I still believe Keyonte can be a great scorer. But, I started to question if the juice was worth the squeeze with Keyonte. He isn’t a true point guard, so he falls into an NBA archetype that’s rife with pitfalls: scoring combo guards. Unless these players can contribute on offense, their impact is usually negligible. There are notably few who have been an integral part of deep playoff runs, as successful teams usually have a bunch of 6’6+ two-way players with perimeter skill contributing to their rotation instead. But, there’s a chance Keyonte makes it all work.

As I’ve said, he’s got the tools to be a great scorer in the league. His off the dribble game looks like it’ll translate, as he creates a ton of space on such shots and has good touch (79.3 FT%). HoopMath charted 28 made unassisted two point jumpers, and an absurd 29 unassisted threes. I’m fine with the low conversion rate of these shots for Keyonte, as volume and touch matter considerably more for freshman prospects. The 2023 guard class is generally poor at getting to the rim, and Keyonte is no different. Only 14.6 of his shots came at the rim, per HoopMath, and 3 dunks on the season doesn’t help Keyonte’s case as a downhill athlete. And yet, Keyonte shot 9.4 FTA per 100 compared to 11.5 2PA. A FTA:2PA ratio above 0.8 is quite rare, but it’s a threshold that many of the best players in the world hit in college. 

Passing-wise, Keyonte has some great flashes of advanced reads, but his sky-high turnover rate of 5.9 per 100 needs to be lowered significantly for a team to feel good about letting Keyonte run a second unit at some point. It’s far more likely that Keyonte has some secondary playmaking responsibilities, but that will come further down the road. 

Defensively, Keyonte competes, and I thought his on-ball defense in particular looked quite good at times. The concern is about whether Keyonte’s athletic ability will translate up a level to quicker NBA guards and wings. If it does, Keyonte might actually have some upside that puts this ranking to shame. If you squint, you can see a CJ McCollum type player here. Unfortunately, the far more likely outcome is that Keyonte becomes a score-only guard who you have to overpay to retain past his rookie deal. That puts him just outside the lottery. 

16. Anthony Black, Guard, Arkansas

Anthony Black is nearly universally loved on draft Twitter and clearly in NBA circles too. Some have Black as high as fourth on their draft boards. It’s not like I don’t see the appeal. Black is 6’6, really athletic off of two feet, slides with ball handlers well on defense, and can pass on offense. His 3.2 STL% and 1.8 BLK% are great numbers for a freshman, as is a whopping 0.578 FTr. However, Black strikes me as a classic jack of all trades, master of none connector prospect that we tend to overrate.

Black likely isn’t a primary ball handler in the NBA, as his rim pressure off the dribble is iffy, and he’s a virtual non-factor shooting off the dribble. Thus, Black likely needs to shoot in order to be a positive NBA player. I’m not sure I trust Black’s jumper enough to bet on the “if he shoots” outcome. His 30.1 3P% and 70.5 FT% aren’t great, and I really don’t trust the touch and mechanics. There’s a chance that teams are content ignoring Black when he’s spotting up for three. When Black is running the offense, teams will try to under him to death until he proves that won’t be a viable strategy. 

I’m sure Black will provide some value as a playmaker, and he has a good chance of being a positive defender in the NBA. But, we have to account for the possibility that Black’s offensive role will be a secondary creator who can’t shoot. Are we sure that his passing is good enough to really hurt defenses if that’s his role? I’m not. I am always willing to bet on smart, defensive-oriented wing sized players with pedigree going back to high school, but there are red flags aplenty here. Thus, the middle of the first round feels right for Black. 

17. Dereck Lively II, Big, Duke

Lively is a traditional center who averaged 5.2 points per game last season at Duke. You read that right. 5.2 PPG. So, we’re not off to a good start here. But, the rest of Lively’s profile mirrors that of many successful bigs in the NBA. Lively blocked 7.2 shots per 100 possessions, corralled offensive rebounds better than anyone in this class (12.4 OREB%), and had a positive AST:TO ratio, having averaged 3.2 assists per 100 to just 2.0 turnovers, a remarkably low number for a big man. Of course, the low turnover numbers were helped by the fact that Lively’s usage on offense was exclusively rim running and offensive rebounds. But, it’s better to have those numbers than not have them!

I want to circle back to the absurd 7.2 blocks per 100. As crazy as it sounds, that might actually be underrating Lively’s rim protection abilities. As the season went on, Lively began to have a Rudy Gobert-esque effect on drivers. Players were terrified to even shoot at the rim when Lively was parked in the paint. Combine that with some hip fluidity and lateral mobility, Lively has legit DPOY upside in his high-end outcomes. 

Additionally, reports from Lively’s pro day said that Lively was making corner threes with ease. The mechanics actually looked pretty good at Duke, so we have to account for an outside chance that Lively becomes a pick and pop threat. If he does, 17 will be wayyyy too low for Lively.

Lively probably ends up being selected in the lottery tomorrow, but I can’t quite get there. I tend to fade traditional centers on my board anyway, and the complete lack of a scoring game scares me on offense. I value the film that I saw of Lively (and one game in person against UVA where he got played off the floor offensively) over pro day reports and workout videos. I don’t want to bank on DPOY upside for a lottery ranking either. If Lively is a positive defender but not an All-Defense guy, that becomes a less enticing proposition. 

18. Colby Jones, Guard, Xavier

Colby Jones is one of my favorites in this class. He’s a 6’5, 200 pound guard who is kind of good at everything. He’s young for a junior, as he only just turned 21, and his per 100 statline is a thing of beauty: 24.5 points, 9.4 rebounds, 7.2 assists (to 3.8 turnovers), 2.1 steals, and 0.9 blocks. Jones also shot 56.3 percent on twos and 37.8 percent from three. 

The jump shot is not a sure thing, as Jones had a career-low 65.8 FT% this past season. However, the mechanics look good off the catch. I trust Jones to drain catch and shoot jumpers in the NBA. If he can do that, there’s an important role for him on offense due to his passing. Jones initiated a lot of offense at Xavier, and he involved his teammates at a high rate. Jones actually eclipsed the AST%:USG% ratio > 1 threshold I discussed earlier with Cason Wallace. 

 Jones projects to hold his own defensively too. He averaged 2.4 steals per 100 for his career at Xavier, and his technique getting into ball handlers and navigating screens is excellent. Off the ball, Jones is keenly aware of man and ball, and his rotations are on-time and disruptive. His smarts and effort on that end should earn him playing time early in his career. 

Athletic concerns and worries about Jones’ jump shot likely drop him into the late first or early second round. But, I love Jones in the top 20. I believe he will shoot, and he’s too smart of a passer and defender to not contribute in the NBA for a while. 

19. Brandin Podziemski, Guard, Santa Clara

Brandin “Air Podz” Podziemski is another fun prospect that teams should be considering starting around pick 15. Athleticism is the obvious concern with Podz. It’s possible that he’s just Nik Stauskas, who was an excellent high-feel shooter in college. He just didn’t meet the athletic threshold required to stick around the NBA. Now that we’ve acknowledged the potential downside, allow me to start gushing about Podz. 

Let’s start with the per 100 stats, an absurd average of 31 points, 13.7 rebounds, 5.7 assists, 2.8 steals, and 0.7 blocks. Podz also shot 43.8 percent from three on 9.0 attempts per 100 and posted an elite 10.7 BPM. For someone with athletic concerns, those steal and rebound rates are really impressive. For me, those numbers reflect Podz’s incredible mind for the game. As I said in my draft strategy article, Podz is so damn smart he’s going to figure out how to contribute one way or another. 

Defensively, Podz will have to be hidden off the ball. He regularly got cooked on the ball, a problem that will only get worse in the NBA. But, as a team defender, Podz competes hard and disrupts much more than you’d expect him to. He makes timely rotations, opportunistically digs down to force steals, and fights through screens to the best of his ability. One thing is for sure: effort won’t hold Podz back on defense. On offense, Podz will continue to shoot the lights out and make high level passing reads as a secondary creator, a la Luke Kennard. His handle should translate enough to snake his way into the lane and hit floaters too, which accounted for many of his 50 unassisted two point makes. 

Like I said, Podziemski has plenty of downside rooted in the fact he might get matchup hunted to death on defense. But, you have to bet on production and impact to the degree Podz has it at a certain point on the board. 

20. Dariq Whitehead, Wing, Duke

Whitehead is an interesting bet, as his role at Duke was pretty much exclusively to knock down catch and shoot threes. He was certainly up for the task, as he shot 42.9 percent from three on 10.4 attempts per 100. The added layers of intrigue with Whitehead come from his high school pedigree (#1 RSCI), and the fact that he doesn’t turn 19 until August 1st. Whitehead was far too turnover prone for his role at 4.1 per 100, and he didn’t do much in the way of advantage creation either. But, a super young 6’6 wing who can shoot? That’s a pretty good starting point. A 2.2 STL% is nothing to sneeze at either. 

The flip side with Whitehead is that he’s completely inept when he walks inside the three point line at this stage of his career. He actually shot worse from two than he did from three, posting an abysmal 41.4 2P%. Another looming issue with Whitehead is the medical situation. Whitehead dealt with a foot injury all of this season, which took away a lot of the athletic ability he showed in high school. Had he been healthy, there’s a chance Whitehead could have shown much more inside the arc. It’s worth noting that he had a second surgery on his foot after the season ended, so I have a hard time making an upside bet on Whitehead predicated on regaining his athleticism. 

Overall, the combination of wing size, youth, pedigree, and shooting will always be intriguing. But, there’s a chance Whitehead has a tough time developing despite those valuable traits. He’s a tough one to pin down. 

21. Bilal Coulibaly, Wing, Metropolitans 92

No prospect experienced a meteoric rise quite like Victor Wembanyama’s teammate Bilal Coulibaly. He went from playing in the French second division to starting alongside Wemby in the French League finals. He wasn’t just ball-watching out there either. Mets 92 trusted Coulibaly to run some pick and roll in this critical setting. The degree of development within the year is unbelievable. The question is: was it enough to make Coulibaly a top prospect? 

The NBA seems to think so, as Coulibaly is unlikely to fall out of the lottery. I have been a little more reserved when moving him up my board. The good with Coulibaly is that he’s 6’8 with a 7’2 wingspan and young, with a July 2004 birthday. He also really fights on defense. I love his ability to navigate screens and stick with ball handlers. The potential to be a menace on the ball is absolutely there. 

Offensively, Coulibaly can handle the ball a bit and his decision making is trending in the right direction. Some have cited Coulibaly’s physical tools as a reason to believe he will develop into a borderline All-Star level creator. Basically, a compounding skills type of proposition. While Coulibaly has some juice, I certainly don’t think it’s on that level. I also don’t trust Coulibaly’s shot. In particular, the touch worries me. He only shot 62.7% from the line, and he had some ugly misses on his pull up, a shot he would need if he’s a creator bet. 

Overall, my instinct is that Coulibaly tops out as an energy wing at the next level. But, if Coulibaly keeps developing at this rate, he could really burn me for ranking him this low. I guess we’ll see.  

22. Brice Sensabaugh, Wing, Ohio St.

As a 6’6, 235 pound freshman, Brice averaged 40.3 points per 100 on an efficient 58.7 TS%. Surely we’re all overthinking this and he should be a consensus top five pick. Well, not so fast. 

While he’s got unbelievable touch, I’m concerned Brice’s athleticism isn’t conducive to being an effective on-ball scorer in the NBA. He isn’t very explosive, and I think he looks stiff in his movement patterns. Normally, we talk about prospects filling out their frame when discussing potential improvements to their functional athleticism. Brice is the opposite. He needs to slim down and gain some quickness and fluidity. 

That stiff movement also affects Brice on defense, where he is a clear negative. I actually question whether or not Brice will play NBA minutes in his first season because of his defense; it’s that bad. His 1.3 STL% and 1.7 BLK% are unremarkable for a wing, and Brice is completely lost as a team defender at this point. He also averaged a staggering 6.7 fouls per 100. Brice’s passing also leaves a lot to be desired. He shows some flashes, but almost two turnovers for every assist tells you all you need to know for the current state of affairs.  

On a much more positive note, Brice has a case for the best shooter in the draft. He shot 40.5% from three on high volume, as well as 83 percent from the line. If nothing else, he’ll provide a lights out stroke from deep. But, it’s likely he’ll provide more than that on offense. You don’t reach the scoring heights Brice did unless you have some tricks up your sleeve. He mastered isolation scoring at the college level, and has one of the best midrange pull ups I’ve seen from a draft prospect. 

Basketball games are won by one team putting the ball through the net more times than their opponent. Brice does that at an elite level. But, the questions about literally everything else keep him outside my top 20. 

Tier 5

At this point in the draft, there are two main types of bets you can make. You can draft someone whose right tail outcome isn’t all that inspiring, but they have a high chance of being a quality rotation player. Conversely, you can swing for the fences on someone who clearly isn’t ready, but there’s just enough to build on such that you might have a decent player down the road. It’s tough to rank these two types alongside each other, so my solution is to split Tier 5 into a few groups, some of which contain safer players and others more risky ones. 

Tier 5a – Preferred Rotation Bets

23. Marcus Sasser, Guard, Houston

If you watched the playoffs this year, you know that successful teams often have 3&D guards start alongside jumbo creators. Sasser projects to fill this role perfectly. He’s a bit short at 6’1, but he has a sturdy 195 pound frame. He uses every ounce of strength he has to bother guys at the point of attack. A 3.2 STL% shows how disruptive Sasser can be. Then there’s the shooting. Sasser shot 38.4% from three on 13.9 attempts per 100 and 84.8% from the line. Sasser has a prolific midrange pull up game he can use too, should defenders run him off the line. Sasser won’t be running pick and roll every possession for you, but his 1.94 shows that you can rely on him to make quality decisions within the flow of the offense. It’s easy to picture Sasser helping a playoff team and playing a decade in the NBA. He’d be a great option for a contender. 

24. Jaime Jaquez Jr., Wing, UCLA

Jaime Jaquez is an older 6’6 wing who is far from a sure thing to shoot. That’s a shaky foundation, but Jaquez has just about everything else you could ask for. He filled up the box score, having averaged 31.9 points, 14.7 rebounds, 4.2 assists, 2.8 steals, and 1.1 blocks per 100. It might not surprise you to know that Jaquez also had a 10.7 BPM. Additionally, Jaquez just has a knack for making the right play. He had a super low 9.9 TOV%, and he is great at putting his teammates in positions to succeed. I like Jaquez’s anticipation as a team defender too. Jaquez also fits brilliantly with any team because of his motor. He’s always diving for loose balls, crashing the glass, and intensely guarding ball handlers. Jaquez is simply a tone setter who will enhance his team on the court as well as in the locker room. If the rumor is true that Miami is locked in on Jaime at 18, I can’t imagine a better fit. 

25. Jordan Hawkins, Guard, UConn

Prospects who play for the national champs have been overrated in the past because they’re labeled as winners. Sometimes the shoe fits, but more often than not scouts anchor that one player to the accomplishments of an entire team. I’m worried that’s what some are doing with Hawkins. That said, this is the best shooter in the draft. His mechanics are picture-perfect and the speed of his release is Klay Thompson-esque. You might want to sit down for these numbers: 38.8 3P% on 15.1 attempts per 100 and an 88.7 FT%. Hawkins isn’t higher on my board because I don’t trust him to do much else at an NBA level. I see Isaiah Joe as a reasonable outcome if Hawkins gets better at weaponizing his gravity to create for others and improves as a team defender. If he’s just a pure shooting specialist, Hawkins could run into some issues deep in the playoffs. But, when the shooting is THIS good, it’s hard to pass on.

Tier 5b – Preferred Raw Prospect Gambles

26. Maxwell Lewis, Wing, Pepperdine 

No prospect has had more of a roller coaster ride on my board this year than Maxwell Lewis. At one point, I was all in. I saw the potential wing shot creator with functional length on defense and budding playmaking. I even wrote about Lewis during the preseason, anticipating that he would be a top 20 guy for me this cycle. Unfortunately, while all the enticing tools were still on display, another year went by where Lewis didn’t put it together. The propensity for turnovers from his freshman year carried over, as he averaged 4.2 of them per 100. But, the real worries come on defense. Lewis has always had incredibly slow hips, which make it impossible to contain ball handlers. But, I had some optimism about him as a team defender. That optimism waned when Lewis’ steal rate dropped to an abysmal 1.1 per 100. To make matters worse, Lewis is older than you’d like for a prospect this raw – he’ll be 21 on NBA opening day. There’s enough to work with that I’ll hold out a little hope that everything comes together and Lewis becomes a two-way shot creating wing. But, he has a long way to go. 

27. Julian Phillips, Forward, Tennessee

People are sleeping on this guy quite a bit! I didn’t really register how good of an athlete Phillips is until the combine when he killed it on the vertical jump. I didn’t pay too much attention to Phillips during the season because I thought of him as a multi-year guy. But, I dove deeper after the combine, and I think we’ve got a fascinating development case to monitor here. An uber-athletic 6’8 wing who got fouled as much as he did (0.615 FTr) and was an advanced defender for a freshman deserves consideration. The shot isn’t as hopeless as his 23.9 3P% suggests either. Phillips shot 82.2 percent from the line last year. Going back a couple years, he shot an eye-opening 37 percent from three in high school and AAU play. Phillips could be a 3&D wing hiding in plain sight, he just needs a patient development staff. 

28. Noah Clowney, Forward, Alabama

Clowney is a tough one because the long term vision for him is to be a stretch four, yet he can’t shoot right now. He only shot 28.3 percent from three and 64.9 percent from the line. The mechanics give people (including me) some hope, though. Clowney shoots a smooth, comfortable ball, and he’s young enough (July 2004 birthday) that the results have time to catch up to the eye test. Even though he’s skinny, Clowney is already a great functional athlete. His gaudy 66.9 2P% and 17.2 rebounds per 100 reflect that. All-in-one metrics love Clowney as well. He posted a 8.3 BPM, and he frequently ranks highly in draft models. Clowney likely needs time in the G-League, but I’ll always approve of betting on functional athleticism and the potential of perimeter skill. 

Tier 5c – Next Rotation Guys Up 

29. Jalen Slawson, Wing, Furman

Yup, I’ve got a 23 year old wing from Furman in my top 30. Talk to the hand. In all seriousness, Slawson is someone I’ve liked since his junior year. His statistical profile is a thing of beauty. At 6’7, 210 pounds, He shot 62.6% from two, 39.4% from three, had a 19.9 AST%, 2.9 STL%, and 5.3 BLK%. Insane. Slawson has always been incredibly smart. He was an elite event creator on defense every year at Furman, and he’s an excellent passer capable of dicing up defenses from the high post and the top of the key. Slawson’s age means he needs to contribute quickly in order to stick in the league, and I’m confident he’ll do just that. What team can’t use a wing who wreaks havoc on defense, makes smart decisions, and can knock down an open shot? There’s no guarantee that Slawson can hang athletically in the NBA. If there was, he’d be much higher on my board. But, I’m betting Slawson will tighten the bolts and improve just as he’s done every year of his career. If Slawson goes undrafted, it would be an absolute steal. 

30. Trayce Jackson-Davis, Big, Indiana

In my draft strategy article, I talked about how Trayce Jackson-Davis is my kind of big man bet in the second round. The bigs who buck the trend of being played off the floor in the playoffs have high positional feel and/or ball screen coverage versatility. Oftentimes, big prospects who fit this mold are available in the second round. Xavier Tillman was that guy in 2021, and Jaylin Williams was in 2022. I had a top 20 grade on Tillman and a top 25 grade on Williams, and both have turned into quality NBA centers. Jackson-Davis falls here to 30 because he’s not super tall and isn’t nearly as switchable as Tillman and Williams. 

His scoring game isn’t super exciting and will exclusively revolve around rim running and getting putbacks. It helps that Jackson-Davis is a great rebounder. But, Jackson-Davis really sets himself apart with his passing. His 24.8 AST% is better than most of the guard prospects in this draft! I love the laser beams Jackson-Davis throws to open shooters out of the post. His quick decision making in the short roll will be an asset too. Defensively, Jackson-Davis has more mobility than he gets credit for. He’ll be system-dependent in the NBA – if you can get him to be a help defender rather than the primary rim protector on defense, good things will happen. It’s not a sexy pick, but Jackson-Davis has a good chance to contribute for a while. 

31. Ben Sheppard, Wing, Belmont

Sheppard is another guy I’ll admit to not taking super seriously until after the combine. Sheppard killed it in the second combine scrimmage, where he showed how helpful his shooting and feel can be for a team. Sheppard shot 41.5 percent from three this past season on 10.2 attempts per 100. The shot itself looks good, and he can get it off in a variety of different movement situations. What’s perplexing about Sheppard’s shooting is the 69.6 FT% for his career. There’s a tug of war between the production from three and the touch indicator at the line, but I trust what I’m seeing in the shot. Sheppard also had an AST:TO ratio comfortably over one and a solid 2.3 STL% to round out his role player profile. Sheppard’s athleticism will be tested on defense in the NBA. He needs to get much stronger, but his anticipation and motor will help him contribute defensively as his frame fills out. Sheppard doesn’t have a lot of upside, but he’s got a good chance to contribute to a rotation within the next couple years.  

32. Kobe Brown, Forward, Missouri

As a 6’7, 250 pound power forward, Kobe Brown scored in volume (30.1 points per 100), was an excellent processor and passer (4.9 assists per 100 to 3.2 turnovers), and defended cerebrally (career 2.5 STL% and 2.4 BLK%). Brown has the size and skill combination to contribute for a long time in the NBA. The lynchpin with Brown is the shot. He had a virtually unprecedented improvement in his 3P%, from 20.6% his junior year to 45.5% last year. His shot looks good, but betting on a one year sample of great shooting from an upperclassman has burned scouts in the past. So, I’m proceeding with caution here. If Brown does shoot, he could be used as an effective stretch four or small-ball five given his strong frame.  

33. Kris Murray, Wing, Iowa

Kris Murray’s twin is Keegan Murray, last year’s fourth overall pick by the Kings. It’s possible that Kris is being mocked in the first based on his relation to Keegan. Personally, I don’t get it with Kris. The shot is far from a guarantee (career 69.9 FT%), and he didn’t stand out in any particular way as a defender. The low turnover rate is nice to see for a wing, but I usually want to see low turnovers in conjunction with a projectable jumper. Kris will also be 23 on opening day. So, if he’s going to iron out the jumper or get better on defense, it needs to happen soon. Murray slots in here because I have to account for the possibility that the jumper is real. A 6’8 wing who can shoot likely sticks around for a while. But, teams shouldn’t draft Kris Murray thinking that they’re getting Keegan.  

Tier 5d – A Couple More Decent Gambles 

34. James Nnaji, Big, Barcelona

As an 18 year old, Nnaji earned minutes for a Barcelona team littered with former NBA players. That’s intriguing enough on its own. Then there’s the physical tools: 7’0 tall, 7’7 wingspan, a chiseled 250 pound frame, a functional vertical, and surprisingly decent mobility. Nnaji used that athleticism to become one of the better shot blockers in the Spanish ACB, posting a 6.4 BLK%. Perhaps more impressively, the BLK% jumped up to 8.2 in his 19 Euroleague games. Offensively, Nnaji will be exclusively used as a rim runner. He doesn’t have a prayer to shoot, and he won’t be trusted to make passing reads. But, Nnaji is a massive lob threat, and I trust that he’ll get some easy buckets because of that. As a stash option, I don’t mind it if a team drafts Nnaji to see where his physical tools can take him. He’s on a great development trajectory, so there could really be something here. 

35. Amari Bailey, Guard, UCLA

There are plenty of reasons not to consider Bailey. His low three point volume and FT% have me skeptical about his shot. Bailey also averaged 5.4 turnovers per 100, dreadful for a non-initiator. But, Bailey is fairly athletic, and I thought he showed some good stuff on defense. His 2.3 STL% and 3.3 DBPM are quite good for a freshman. I don’t like factoring the combine in too much, but Bailey looked much improved as a passer in the scrimmages. If Bailey can pass, defend, and continue to hone his jumper, he could become a rotation guy down the line. 

Tier 6 – The Rest

36. Julian Strawther, Wing, Gonzaga

37. Seth Lundy, Wing, Penn State

38. Jalen Hood-Schifino, Guard, Indiana

39. Nick Smith Jr., Guard, Arkansas

40. GG Jackson, Forward, South Carolina

41. Hunter Tyson, Wing, Clemson

42. Jordan Walsh, Wing, Arkansas

43. Jordan Miller, Wing, Miami (FL)

44. Jalen Pickett, Guard, Penn State

45. Jaylen Clark, Guard, UCLA

46. Adama Sanogo, Big, UConn

47. D’Moi Hodge, Guard, Missouri

48. Craig Porter Jr., Guard, Wichita St

49. Toumani Camara, Wing, Dayton

50. Andre Jackson Jr., Wing, UConn

51. Olivier-Maxence Prosper, Wing, Marquette

52. Tristan Vukcevic, Big, KK Partizan

53. Terquavion Smith, Guard, NC State

54. Isaiah Wong, Guard, Miami (FL)

55. Ricky Council IV, Guard, Arkansas

56. Azuolas Tubelis, Big, Arizona

57. Mohamed Gueye, Forward, Washington St.

58. Landers Nolley III, Wing, Cincinnati

59. Mike Miles Jr., Guard, TCU

60. Jalen Wilson, Wing, Kansas

61. Rayan Rupert, Wing, NZ Breakers

62. Omari Moore, Guard, San Jose State

63. Justyn Mutts, Forward, Virginia Tech

64. Tosan Evbuomwam, Forward, Princeton

65. Chris Livingston, Wing, Kentucky

66. Liam Robbins, Big, Vanderbilt

67. Colin Castleton, Big, Florida

68. Kendric Davis, Guard, Memphis

69. Alex Fudge, Wing, Florida

70. Caleb McConnell, Wing, Rutgers

71. Sir’Jabari Rice, Wing, Texas

72. Taylor Funk, Forward, Utah St

73. Jacob Toppin, Forward, Kentucky

74. Charles Bediako, Big, Alabama

75. Deshawndre Washington, Wing, New Mexico St

76. Drew Timme, Big, Gonzaga

77. Oscar Tshiebwe, Big, Kentucky

78. Emoji Bates, Wing, Eastern Michigan

79. Mojave King, Guard, G-League Ignite

80. Leaky Black, Wing, UNC

The post Michael Neff’s 2023 Big Board appeared first on Swish Theory.

The rise of the Steph Curry Warriors was an evolutionary earthquake, changing the nature of the sport quicker than a leather ball rips through a polyester net. Overnight, perimeter shotmaking became en vogue and the focus of the sport continued its way from the confines paint and out beyond the perimeter. 

Somewhere along the way, we lost the plot. A new environment meant new conditions for growth and with that came modernized valuations for incoming draft prospects. While score-first point guards and versatile forwards shot up draft boards (for good reason), that rise coincided with a dramatic decline in the valuation of traditional bigs. 

In some cases, that change was needed. Slow-footed post hubs are all but a thing of the past as the athletic requirements for the position have grown. On the other hand, some of the most valuable defensive big men in the league were drafted well below their actual value. 

From Bam Adebayo to Robert Williams or Jarrett Allen (and Walker Kessler and Jalen Duren for the brave of heart), many of the most impactful young big men in the league were drafted out of the top ten, if not the lottery entirely. 

More important than the missed opportunity of drafting said player is the gaping cavern their absence leaves within a team’s defensive identity. As you look at the best defenses across the league in Cleveland, Milwaukee, Boston or Memphis, great defensive big men continue to lead great defenses. 

Dereck Lively II represents an incredibly interesting thought experiment within this construct. If you are interested in a breakdown of his on-court strengths and weaknesses there is a scouting report released in companion with this piece. What I will be doing here is digging deeper into his concept as a player, how his season fares historically within that archetype, and what developmental context can best maximize his existing skill set. 

Reality can be hard to find when the very earth beneath your feet is constantly changing, but one thing has remained true. It is a blue world trying to contend in the NBA without a playoff-durable big man to own the paint, and that player is harder to find than you might think.

Concept: Rim Running Shotblocker

Walker Kessler, Steven Adams, Nerlens Noel, Robert Williams

The general concept of the “defense first” center is by no means a new one. Since the inception of the sport the largest person on the court has shouldered the largest defensive burden. When it comes to protecting the basket, size is always going to matter. It is not the fool-proof rule of thumb that it used to be, but its value is inherent: the larger you are the more imposing you are in contesting shots and attacking the glass.

Finding proof of concept for a player like Lively is both incredibly easy and downright impossible. The first place to start feels pretty straightforward in Walker Kessler. Kessler embodies the very hope of what Lively could be, and why it is a fairly easy bet to make. Much like Lively’s first half of the year, Kessler’s freshman season at UNC saw him struggle to earn a consistent role despite his dominating per-possession stats while on the court. 

Kessler’s meteoric rise the following season at Auburn and this year in Utah is a picture-perfect data point on why to be excited. Despite a poor context and role, Kessler’s low-minute dominance at UNC foretold genuine upside that was just a little harder to see. While Lively’s block rate didn’t re-write record books like Kessler did last year, he was incredibly impactful defending the paint and anchored one of the best defenses in college basketball. 

Offensively, the comparison becomes much trickier. Kessler’s freshman and sophomore campaigns saw a significantly larger volume of shots attempted with relatively similar efficiency. Lively’s usage rate of 12.8 would be the lowest of any first round pick in history and is genuinely without precedent. While there is no 1 for 1 comparison, there are a few players that represent a potential development path for Lively in the league. 

The first name that comes to mind when I think of steady-handed competence from the big position is Steven Adams. There was little hope for “star” upside when Adams was drafted in the lottery by the Oklahoma City Thunder, but he did grow to become a star in his role while playing a major part on some of the best teams of the 2010s. Giving your young star guard a competent and reliable roll option they can grow alongside is generally good business, for the guard, the big and the organization as a whole.

That value equation is the same for Lively, albeit in a more mobile physical package. Lively is a better vertical athlete, but a worse finisher around the basket (49% vs 58% on non-dunk rim attempts) with about ⅔ of the total scoring volume. The offensive threshold between valuable and unplayable is an incredibly thin line, and Adams just barely crossed it. Lively was a much better passer as a freshman and that skill should translate well to the next level, but for that to happen he will need to be a threat to score.

The other side of that line is Nerlens Noel, drafted with the hopes he would become the perfect modern day rim runner. He was mobile, blocked shots, got steals, had a solid assist rate with the vertical athleticism to draw fouls and dunk everything around the hoop. An ACL injury sapped a little of that high-end athleticism, but ultimately it was his lack of offensive value that derailed the lofty expectations of his career. 

Noel’s hands were an issue as a prospect and against NBA level competition that was only exacerbated. He can struggle to catch and score efficiently as a roll man and when that isn’t working there are few other places to turn. Teams aren’t going to give up five pick-and-roll alley-oops a game. 

This is where the ultimate floor for Lively resides. Noel was a significantly higher 57% on non-dunk rim attempts and his assist rate was nearly identical. Lively dunked the ball slightly more often and at least attempted to take a few threes (a surprisingly encouraging indicator for bigs who can one day kinda shoot), but the concerns are legitimate. 

If Lively isn’t able to provide a genuine threat to score as a roller there is no offensive foundation to grow upon. His defense is too good to wash out of the league, I believe that firmly, but the idea he is a sure-fire starter or even high-end rotation piece is lacking some important nuance.

On the other extreme, Robert Williiams II shows what this archetype can be if they are able to provide genuine rim pressure. Williams is an incredible defensive big that provides the Celtics real versatility as a primary rim protector or weak side rotator. 

Robert Williams is one of two big men drafted since 2017 to make an All-Defense team, but what separates him from his peers is his offensive value. Williams is a ferocious athlete with the strength to dunk through people in a way few prospects have, but it is his touch around the rim that is the foundation for his success. 

He has good hands and easily exceeds the lower requirement for touch as a roll man, which is in essence simply scoring efficiently against your typical pick and roll defense. With a proper ball handler Williams has the tools, touch and tough screen setting to tear apart traditional coverages, and that efficiency is what opens up his game as a passer. 

His offensive value is what keeps him on the court in crunch time or playoff settings, providing the foundation of minutes needed to have an All-Defense caliber season. Staying on the court is half the battle for defensive bigs these days, and that is the battle Lively will need to survive in order to truly hit his ceiling. 

That feels like an impossible task from a macro view. William’s freshman year usage was double Lively’s (23.4 vs 12.8) and touch around the rim significantly higher (61.6 vs 48.8). While that is true, the bar required for scoring volume or offensive value is not that of Robert Williams, but rather somewhere between the two. The game isn’t about finding the best possible offensive center, it is about finding one with the foundational skill required to remain on the court long enough to truly impact the course of games. Lively will do that defensively, but offensively is another question. 

Lively thrives above the rim and his 3.2 dunks per 40 minutes is an incredibly encouraging mark for someone in a spacing deprived offense. Beyond above-rim pressure there was very little substance to Lively’s scoring package. As a comparison to Williams he not only had a smaller volume of rim attempts but, more starkly, took eight (!!) shots in the midrange, compared to Williams with 105. 

That difference in assertiveness and usage is incredibly stark with both parties irreconcilably affected by their on-court context. That isn’t to say Lively would have had a similar offensive season with the 2017 Texas A&M team, but maybe the difference wouldn’t be as stark and the developmental hill to climb wouldn’t seem so steep. Lively doesn’t have to reach Williams’ level of offensive impact, but his developmental journey and on-court roll represents the path for Lively to truly hit on his upside.

Context: On-Ball Creation, Spacing, Secondary Rim Protection

Oklahoma City Thunder, Houston Rockets, Toronto Raptors, Indiana Pacers

Dereck Lively entered this college basketball season with a mountain of expectations. Lively, ESPNs #1 ranked recruit in the class of 2022, enrolled at Duke with other highly touted freshmen in Dariq Whitehead, Kyle Filipowski, Mark Mitchell and Tyrese Proctor to form one of the most decorated recruiting classes in recent memory. 

Duke began the year ranked as a top 10 team in the country on the backs of their newly-minted blue-chip freshmen, but the year quickly turned sour. It was immediately apparent that the team did not have enough spacing to survive (particularly in the absence of Dariq Whitehead), nor the on-ball creation necessary to truly maximize Lively’s skillset. 

The good news is that he will have better spacing and on-ball creation on the roster surrounding him next year regardless of which team selects him, and that should help open up some of his offensive game. But what situations give him the best chance at hitting the higher end of his potential?

Oklahoma City is the first team that comes to mind and the longer I think about it the more excited I become. SGA is a legit, A1 creator for the future and with Josh Giddey next to him they should have 48 minutes of good point guard play every night. Factor in the emergence of Jalen Williams as a true-blue wing scorer and the presence of the greatest shooting coach of all time in Chip Engelland (silent weeping), OKC has all the offensive ingredients needed to insulate and maximize Lively’s development.

Defensively, it is hard to not get excited about a frontcourt pairing of Chet Holmgren and Dereck Lively. Both have the mobility needed to play a variety of defensive schemes and switch out on the perimeter (in moderation) while being two of the best freshman shot blockers in college basketball history. I am floored as I type this, a spiritual embodiment of Ryan Reynolds’ character in The Big Short. Chet is going to shoot it (you can carve that into the streets of Bricktown, it’s happening), and in turn may be the ideal frontcourt pairing for Lively now and in the future. 

Houston offers another intriguing fit later in the teens, but comes with a caveat. There needs to be a point guard of the future in place for this to have any chance of working. This team desperately needs someone to bring a sense of structure offensively. Drafting Scoot would immediately assuage those fears, and suddenly a supporting cast of future All-Star scorer Jalen Green and complimentary two-way forwards in Jabari Smith and Tari Eason starts to look a whole lot more enticing. 

The Jabari/Tari combo is what really draws me to Houston above other fits as they, in tandem, provide all of the helpside rim protection, perimeter defense, shooting and rim pressure you could ask for next to Lively. If Houston is able to find a real point guard of the future, you would be hard pressed to find a better realistic fit in this upcoming draft. 

The fit in Toronto has, in a way, already been proven. Jakob Poeltl’s mid-season re-addition provided a backbone to their defense and a much needed safety valve for their pick and roll operators. Given time Lively’s impact could be largely similar with a tilt towards the defensive end of the floor. Poeltl is an incredibly sound defensive big with remarkable instincts, but lacking the plus length and athleticism to reach All-Defense levels consistently. Lively is not the scorer around the rim Poeltl was, but his defensive impact and potential is higher. 

This isn’t to say Lively is going to be a better player than Poeltl, that outcome would be an incredibly positive one for Lively. Even if he never reaches that level, he may provide more value to the Raptors simply by being younger with seven years of guaranteed team control. Poeltl is going to be expensive this summer and I would be shocked to see him sign elsewhere after Toronto paid such a hefty price to acquire him. Still,  it would be prudent to have a potential replacement waiting in the wings for when Scottie Barnes, OG Anunoby and Pascal Siakam all begin to negotiate new deals and the cost of Poeltl’s contract becomes prohibitive. 

Finally, Indiana is an intriguing fit for a few different reasons. The presence of Tyrese Haliburton guarantees a competent floor general for Lively to learn and grow with, particularly one that is both reliant-on and remarkable-in operating a pick and roll. Rick Carlisle’s approach in catering offensive sets to Mathurin this year is a sign his feelings toward playing rookies may have finally thawed. To help the  warming process, Lively fits incredibly cleanly into the style of basketball Carlisle teams like to play: fast pace, ball screen oriented attack with a true rim running big. 

Myles Turner may be on a new contract, but I for one would not be surprised to hear rumors he’s on the trade market by next deadline. When there is smoke there must be fire, and half a decade of burning embers don’t go out overnight. Adding a big in Lively that is both cost controlled and more befitting of their coaches game plan seems like an obvious win. I would even be intrigued to see them play together, at least initially. In the long run, his potential fit with Haliburton and Mathurin is about as clean as it gets.

Content:

How good of a defensive prospect is Lively? What is the minimum threshold of scoring volume needed to leverage short roll passing? What is the offensive value of a rim runner?

As a precursor to this piece, I spent an enormous amount of time this season combing through old prospect stat profiles, trying to figure out what indicators are actually valuable in projecting defensive success in the NBA. When it came to bigs, I came away with four specific metrics that appeared to have substantive value:

• Defensive Box +/- (DBPM)
• Block Rate (BLK%)
• Offensive Rebound Rate (OREB%)
• Age

Relatively basic statistical data points that, when used in conjunction, do a surprisingly successful job at identifying big man prospects with the potential to be impactful defenders in the league. 

Historically, Lively’s draft age of 19.33 is young for a freshman and his DBPM of 6.5 is a remarkable outlier. Lively’s DBPM ranks in the top 25 of all college players since 2008, regardless of experience or class. It is only once you factor in his relative youth, the company surrounding him on that list and the difficulty of competition he faced at Duke that the magnitude of his success begins to come into focus.

Big men take time to become impactful defenders. That is a tried and true fact, something you will hear evaluators say a thousand times every draft cycle. It’s an incredibly nuanced and difficult job that takes  preternatural feel and anticipation to reach the highest levels of impact. 

Being not just a good, but a great defensive center as an 18 year old freshman playing for a high major school simply doesn’t happen. When someone is drastically ahead of their age curve in any aspect of development, that tends to be an indicator of outlier potential. 

Lively may not be an excellent defensive big man next year in the NBA, but his macro-level production and in-season improvement defending ball screens and reading the floor defensively make me incredibly confident in his ability to solve problems over the course of his development. 

The focus then turns to the opposite side of the court. When you are as talented of a defensive prospect as Lively, playing a position where defense is your primary avenue to impact, the equation for offensive success changes. You are no longer looking for the most dominant offensive player, but simply a player with potential avenues of contributing to effective offense. 

For Lively, his rim pressure as a lob threat and in the dunker spot should be immediately translatable. He will need to add significant size and strength, but that feels like an incredibly easy bet to make for someone with his age and frame. The non-dunk finishing will need to improve greatly, but playing in an offense with a dynamic creator on-ball and spacing on the wings would go a long way in opening up the court and providing Lively easier looks around the rim. 

When looking at previous big man prospects with poor non-dunk rim efficiency, Jalen Duren (53.3%) and Bam Adebayo (48.8%) were two that stuck out. Yes, both of those guys took a lot more shots and drew fouls at a much higher rate than Lively. 

With that said, all three were incredibly effective and proficient above-rim finishers. That is where their gravity comes from, vertical spacing and relentless strength attacking the rim. Lively is much thinner than both at this age but is strong for his frame and markedly taller than both. If he is able to catalyze that strength as he grows into his frame, most of these problems will fix themselves.  

The key point here is magnitude: Dereck Lively does not need to become an elite finisher to succeed. He simply needs to be good enough, when accounting for his above-rim finishing, to be a legitimate threat to score as a roller. That feels like a reasonable projection to make and one that could pay major dividends down the line. 

The offensive value of an effective rim runner is a nuanced thing, but something that can play a large role in creating a positive environment for developing creators. A good screener can be used in a variety of ways. Screens are set in just about every single possession, be it in a high pick and roll or to free an off ball shooter or to screen the man defending the screener of a different action. NBA teams love to set screens and despite how opaque it sounds, powerful and timely screen setting combined with quick processing and the sight-lines of a seven-footer make for a sneakily impactful offensive player to complement the defensive fireworks. 

That isn’t going to require some outlandish skill development or unlikely improvement. Lively was a much better passer than the numbers suggest, and the numbers were actually solid! Being able to put the ball on the deck out of a DHO, score in the post or stretch the floor would be an incredible development, none are a necessary one for Lively to truly hit as a prospect. Improved foul drawing, the strength to finish through contact, a reliable push shot in the paint: those are what will determine Lively’s success.

Like all good things in life development isn’t going to come easily, but it is far from an unreasonable task. There aren’t a multitude of areas that need to see vast development. The scope is much more narrow, and in turn the spotlight is that much brighter. 

Cultivating an environment suitable for that kind of growth will require structures in place to support him throughout the process. Those supports aren’t permanent, they are just meant to help guide the process during its most vulnerable phases. Dereck Lively has the foundation of skills to one day withstand even the most violent of earthquakes, he just needs time to establish his roots. 

The post Dereck Lively II and the Big Man Blues appeared first on Swish Theory.

Our second roundtable will be focusing on just that: if you ran a front office, how would you establish your draft philosophy? To keep things simple for now, we’re placing at one end of the spectrum drafting for fit and the other drafting purely for best player. Our participants picked their philosophy from a menu of five options:

1. Best Player Available Only
2. Preference for Best Player
3. Equal Consideration for Best Player and Best Fit
4. Preference for Best Fit
5. Best Fit Only

While our crew definitely leaned more in one direction than the other, there remain a wide range of opinions as to why and to what degree, with one writer even taking the nuclear option on the prompt.

Without further ado, see below for how Swish Theory contributors put their draft philosophy into context.

Chip Jones: 1 – BPA Only

Few things frustrate me more than seeing a prospect I loved stuck at the end of the bench as the team that just drafted them fails to find them minutes. But as much as it hurts me to admit, a simple statistical breakdown of previous drafts strongly suggests that teams should focus on drafting the best player available regardless of team fit.

We want to focus on players who have a.) played enough time in the NBA that we can at least somewhat confidently decide how good they really are, and b.) have been drafted recently enough that the NBA they played in is similar to the current NBA environment. I think six full seasons is a good enough sample size for requirement A, and let’s stick to players drafted in 2010 or later as a requirement for B.

We need to gauge players by degrees of performance: starters, role players, and busts. And we’re going to need some rules to make these groupings objective:

• To qualify as a starter the player must have 6 seasons in which they started at least 50% of the games they were available.
• For role players we’ll drop that requirement to 6 seasons of at least 15 minutes per game.
• Players who fail to meet either requirement will be placed into the bust group.

In our 2010 to 2016 window there were 7 drafts with a total of 420 players selected.

Now, 105 of those players were taken between picks 46 and 60. And of those 105 players, 43 have never logged a single NBA minute, while only 4 meet our role player requirements and only a single player (Isaiah Thomas) qualified as a starter. Given that these players are so unlikely to make any impact whatsoever it feels wrong to factor in their outcomes with the other 315 drafted players. So for the purpose of this exercise we won’t be including those selected after pick 45.

Now narrowing in on what we can consider high draft picks, let’s analyze our remaining 315 NBA hopefuls. Among our sample, 62 (or 20%) went on to become NBA starters, giving us an average of 9 starters per draft. A further 72 or 23% have contributed as role players, an average of 10 players a year. With that in mind, less than half of the first 45 players selected in a given draft will actually stick in the league long-term. We can go one step further by separating players selected in the lottery from those taken in the mid to late 1st and early 2nd round.

Of our 62 starters, a strong majority were lotto selections at 39 (63%). With that in mind, just 1 in 10 players taken between picks 15 and 45 will go on to become starters. When it comes to our 72 role players, exactly half heard their name called in the lottery. That number means roughly 1 in 6 of our non-lottery sample size will enjoy a successful NBA career as a role player.

Draft picks hold a lot of value, and given that less than half of the players selected in the first 45 picks end up providing long-term impact, it feels unwise to limit your pool of potential picks to only those who fit a specific team need.

Neema Djavadzadeh: 3 – BPA/Fit Mix

It’s hard to say BPA past the first 4-5 guys in a draft most of the time, because after you get to a certain point, a lot of the players are very similar in terms of impact on the court. Where they differ is their individual skill sets, and some intangibles that as an armchair scout, it is hard to know about. I believe that all 30 teams have (and should have) different draft philosophies because all 30 teams have different personnel and priorities. “KYP” or “Know Your Personnel” is often used when talking about who to put on the court, but I think it applies come draft time too.

For example, if your team just drafted a scoring guard last year with a high pick, it may not be a great idea to draft another scoring guard right after that. Additionally, say you don’t have any coaches who are primed for big man development. Drafting a raw big man who may be considered BPA in the late lottery might not be the best selection for your team. At the end of the day it is about building a long-term roster, and if you don’t see how other important pieces on your team can mesh with a potential draftee, or how you can develop him to do so, then it may not be worth drafting said player.

As I said earlier, I think when you get to a certain point, a lot of the players are similar in impact, and it’s about finding which player will have the most opportunity to make an impact on your team. That’s why I believe in focusing more on tiers than on specific rankings on players. If you have a guy who is a tier ahead of everyone else left on your board but may not fit your roster or personnel immediately, go ahead and draft him! He’s clearly the best player available and you consider him to be at a different level than other prospects, so it’s worth it! But if everybody left on your board is of the same tier, it’s good to look for who fits your team’s personnel best, not just on the court right now, but with the locker room, with the coaching staff, and the team you envision building in the future. More often than not, the Best Player Available is whoever is the best player for your team, not who is the most talented.

Larry Golden: 2 – BPA Preferred

This question brings up many thoughts depending on context. For instance, if I am the Boston Celtics I am probably going to pick a prospect that has the right skillset to help our team today. But if I’m the Indiana Pacers I may take a swing at BPA to see if I can knock that pick out of the park.

I just truly think your organization’s draft process should be dictated by your current player and team’s success. If you already have a high volume scoring guard why draft another? I think you want to complement your roster with skillsets that offer different styles of play, but coincides with all your players. I also think you have to take into account what does your player development department do well? Have you noticed that your players are improving in shooting metrics month to month or every couple months? If so, why not take a shot on a player like a Jeremy Sochan, for instance? Choose a player that has the intangibles and displays intelligence on both end of the floor, but maybe the shooting could be better.

Your development staff over time will show you what they are good at improving in your drafted players. Why not use that data to help you decipher between BPA and fit?

Avinash Chauhan: 1 – BPA Only

My issue with the BPA versus best fit debate is that there are implicit provisions that are a bit underdiscussed. When drafting for best player available, there needs to be a requisite level of organizational trust in the ranking capacity of each team. The framework of analysis needs to be robust, in that a successful draft scouting mechanism can be replicated every season. Of course, this is highly dependent on the organization, and may not be possible as industry standard.

But on the contrary, proponents of the “best fit” proposition suggest a baseline of roster continuity – the foundation of the team will remain for the foreseeable future. While roster continuity has improved over the last few years, this is still quite a relevant confounding factor. “Best fit” also requires a requisite level of organizational trust in its ranking capacity: you need to trust that your projections are pristine, and then also compare prospect projections to determine which prospect would most effectively mesh with your team’s current talent.

So, we’ve established the following: BPA relies on 1.) Trust in the team’s eval. Best fit, meanwhile, relies on all of 1.) Trust in the team’s eval, 2.) Deciding which of the projected evals would mesh best with the core, and 3.) Relative faith in the roster for the near-future. This is the basis for my fundamental pitch of BPA: it’s the probabilistically correct decision. For the sake of the year-to-year variability in the league, give me the option with fewer variables.

Fit is a nebulous concept, but I’m defining fit here as team fit – considering how well the team can integrate the drafted player into their lineup. Considering the developmental strengths and training bandwidth of the organization seems relatively intuitive: for example, the Raptors and Spurs have demonstrated a propensity for developing shooting in wings (let’s ignore that shooting dev is perhaps the most “elastic” skill acquisition endeavor). Still, I don’t consider developmental strengths a true function of fit because it’s personnel-dependent and thus not organizationally intrinsic.

Additionally, I personally believe that feasible skill dev is casually deterministic. In other words, players showcase varying propensities to develop skills such as shooting, and it is up to the organization to find those players and tap into their developmental strengths to allow those players to become the best (shooting/skilled) versions of themselves. As an example, Kawhi Leonard, often considered one of the great skill development cases, had high FT% + a ton of self-created long 2’s, indicating a propensity to develop off-the-dribble shooting later. Judging the skill acquisition and refinement potential of prospects seems far more BPA-esque, especially since this process is similarly not intrinsic to each team. 

Two more concepts that make me such a firm believer in BPA:

First, I think it’s hard to truly manufacture poor team fits in the draft. From the CP3-Harden rockets to ‘21 Nets, the idea that “there’s only one ball” is incredibly ignorant of the lineup versatility enabled by the sheer concentration of talent. I think you can probably pair any combination of players who can consistently draw defensive rotations. There are reasonable limits (don’t construct the 2022 Lakers), but oftentimes the well-roundedness of a team to meet the minimum offensive and defensive thresholds of goodness can be attained in free agency. Also, while there are some extreme cases (taking a traditionally low Expected-Value archetype high in the draft while already employing a high-level player of that archetype, like taking an undersized guard top 5 on a team with Trae Young), even those cases tend to work out. Darius Garland was drafted a year after Collin Sexton, and Anfernee Simons was drafted to a team with Dame and CJ. Five years later, they are both the lead guards for their respective teams. The concept of constantly drafting the best player available and seeing what sticks may not be the most asset-productive move in the short-term, but ultimately the players that adjust the best to the NBA ecosystem end up returning far over expected value. Note that I am not supporting a Darwinian-aligned view of player dev, but instead optimistically believe in the culmination of the intrinsic “dawg” + existing bundles of potential skill. Another side note: dev-locking (ex. Josh Christopher right now for the Rockets) happens too but that’s usually a byproduct of drafting too many players in a single cycle.

Finally, predicting skill dev is extremely hard. Especially in this era of ball-handling wings and position-less schema, there are increasing cases of outlier development and miscalculations of potential. That does not mean you conflate “take the best player available” with “shoot for the moon and find the next Giannis!!”; Instead, scouting departments need to research the underlying skill, neuropsychological, and athletic traits of outlier development, and find players who rank highest based on a holistic evaluation of their potential. Taking the highest ceiling is not the same thing as taking the best player – and it’s incredibly reductive to make that assumption. BPA can be an innately nuanced process without considering team-context. Consistently drafting players who have the highest probabilities of commanding defensive rotations may be a personal philosophy at its core, but I truly believe BPA is more probabilistically viable than conducting the same exact eval process and then strictly trusting your projections to conduct an additional decision-making process that determines which of the players would best fit the current roster. That doesn’t even include the overlying “best-fit” assumption of roster continuity.

Tyler Wilson: 0 – None of the Above

I have found the debate surrounding the strategy of drafting for BPA vs. fit to be, generally speaking, lacking nuance. I really don’t like thinking about drafting through this lens because the answer is so dependent on context: every team around the league has a different set of confounding factors that alter who is the best selection at each draft slot and boiling that calculus down to BPA or Fit feels hyper-simplified to a fault. 

What do these terms even mean? What definition of “best” are you using? Is it the player with the highest ceiling, the greatest odds of hitting a positive outcome or the lowest odds of failing? How do you define “fit”? Is it on-court fit with the players on the roster, the fit within the timeline for contention of the team, the fit with what the team is best developing or the fit with other core pieces already in place? 

Basketball scouting and team building at large is a beautiful mess of inputs unique to each team, trying to boil that down into six letters seems insane to me. Yes, there is nuance and substance that can be brought to this topic, many of my colleagues writing here have done so, but is this really a conversation we need to have every draft cycle? This debate writ large is one of people attempting to cram a basketball worldview into a three letter word that means… nothing? 

It doesn’t have to be this way. There are so many more interesting and informative ways to talk about team building. There are 30 different teams you can develop substantive and unique opinions on, there is no reason to project one overarching draft philosophy to every team around the league. Why do we do this to ourselves? Why am I writing for this roundtable? Why am I yelling at my keyboard in the dead of night?

For nearly every draft pick, the growth into a functional NBA player is done in the league, within the context of the organization that drafts them. The best player available to a team is the player that will provide the largest on-court impact over the course of their career. That inherently depends on their fit within the franchise, from the coaching staff to roster construction and player development staff (on an even broader level, the willingness of said player to remain with the team and city that drafted them). BPA means Best Player Available FOR THAT FRANCHISE. You can’t separate the two, they are dependent upon one another. We’re all just saying the same thing in different ways.

AJ Carter: 2 – BPA Preferred

There’s definitely arguments for both sides in terms of drafting for the best player available vs. drafting for fit, but I lean mostly towards drafting BPA. At the end of the day you’re looking to get the best value possible with your draft pick, and in most cases taking the guys at the absolute top of your board is the best way to do that. Even if the fit is questionable and you have to make a tough decision down the line, the most important thing is to take a player you think is going to be good and you can figure the rest out from there. 

That doesn’t mean that fit just doesn’t matter at all, however, as that’s inherently tied to getting the player with the best chance to pan out for your team specifically. For example if you’re a team with a deep guard rotation full of established players, drafting the high upside yet raw 19 year old point guard might not be the best idea if you aren’t in a position to get them on the floor and let them play through mistakes – even if you’re a big believer in said player’s talent. 

It generally matters less with older and more polished prospects that already know what type of player they’re going to be in the NBA compared to younger prospects that need a certain type of developmental structure. So at the end of the day, yes, you should be drafting the best player available, just through the lens of your specific team’s structure and developmental context.

Danny Johnson: 2 – BPA Preferred

Like many instances in life, there’s so many factors for front office personnel to evaluate draft-wise. In such instances, applying general blanket statements is both unfair and irresponsible. With that being said, I’d lean towards the “best player available” side of this argument, but it’s largely circumstantial.

I believe that drafts are almost never won on the night of the draft, but they can be lost. Most instances where drafts are lost on draft night stems from sacrificing “value” to reach for what teams perceive to be the best fit. As we know, value is far from linear in the NBA Draft. The difference between pick #10 and pick #15 is way larger than the difference between pick #40 and pick #45. The larger the margins are of perceived value, the less teams should be willing to take chances with a fit-based selection. A recent example of this that comes to mind is back from the 2020 NBA Draft. Following the magical ride that was the Bubble Suns, the front office and ownership felt it was time to compete (and they were right), so they went out and traded for perennial All-Star point guard Chris Paul to fortify their starting lineup that now looked like this:

Chris Paul, Devin Booker, Mikal Bridges, Jae Crowder, DeAndre Ayton

A rock solid five. Looking over the bench, they had options to fill out the guard and wing spots with Cameron Johnson, Cameron Payne, Abdel Nader, E’Twaun Moore, Jevon Carter, and Langston Galloway. Were holdovers from the 2019-2020 roster in Dario Saric and Frank Kaminsky enough to stabilize the frontcourt? James Jones and the Phoenix Suns front office didn’t seem to think so. When draft night came around the Phoenix Suns selected Maryland big man Jalen Smith with the 10th overall pick, a surprise to many at the time as Smith typically fell somewhere in the 20s on most evaluators boards. When asked the next morning whether it was a fit-based selection, Jones had this to say:

“It’s always about fit for us. You know it’s never just purely about talent. You cultivate talent, you build, you mold, you shape talent until you find the fit that you’re looking for. This team, the way we’re constructed, the way we play, we tend towards fit and if that means taking a guy that no one thinks should be taken at a slot, we live with that cause we know our ultimate goal is to build the best team.” 

(per the Doug & Wolf show on Arizona Sports radio)

Phoenix went on to basically punt on Jalen Smith. Trading him (less than 16 months after drafting him) and a 2nd round pick to the Pacers to reacquire Torrey Craig, whom they had traded for during the 2020-21 season and let walk in free agency just a few months prior. I apologize to Suns fans in advance, but the player many had thought made sense with the 10th selection at the time was Iowa State guard Tyrese Haliburton because of his clear talent. Outside of Haliburton, there were a few other guys that could’ve helped in Devin Vassell, Cole Anthony, Saddiq Bey, Tyrese Maxey, and Jaden McDaniels. Instead, management decided to take their swing at a big man in a class that was widely considered to be thin at the position. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, but most would agree at the time that the selection was an iffy one made to attempt to plug a hole on the roster.

But make no mistake: being able to effectively deploy the “best player available” strategy is far from straightforward. Even if you had a tangible way to determine the actual best basketball player at the time of draft night, you’d still fail to get the best player a majority of the time. This is because development is far from linear and there’s no handbook on exactly how to maximize a player’s potential.

With that being said, front offices still have the ability to evaluate talent and make their best inferences. There’s a reason we often see a largely-consensus opinion towards the top of big boards, and, no, that reason is not always media group-think. It’s because there’s prospects that come out each year and clearly have these rare, sometimes generational abilities to do certain things on the basketball court. It only makes sense that I stay in the 2020 draft class for an example. This team’s two leading scorers a season ago were 24-and-25-year-old point guards, both of whom the team had control of for at least two more seasons. This team was the Charlotte Hornets who sat at pick #3 in a class that was considered to have a fairly consensus big-3. When it came their time to pick, the only member of the big-3 left was point guard LaMelo Ball, and they didn’t hesitate to side with the talent despite the current roster makeup, selecting the only player from the draft class who’s made an All-Star game thus far. When teams have opportunities to draft players with these special abilities, you take the talent and figure out the fit later (especially because if you have the opportunity to select these guys it normally means you weren’t great the year before anyways, so who cares if the fit doesn’t make the most sense at the moment). 

However, like I alluded to earlier, I believe the prompt is rather circumstantial. As drafts progress, the talent disparity becomes thinner and thinner, sometimes to the point where evaluators can spend weeks on end focused on two different players, but still end up unsure who the better prospect is. These are the instances in which fit matters. Again, I’ll stay in the 2020 NBA Draft for an example. Tyrell Terry was a blossoming freshman at the University of Stanford who showed flashes of brilliance with the ball in his hands. He became a draft darling for many, even pushing towards some people’s top 10. With him still sitting on the board at the end of the first round, the Memphis Grizzlies decided to pass knowing that they already had a lead guard who was dynamic with the ball in his hands named Ja Morant. What they wanted was someone who could provide value in areas that were perceived to be Morant’s weakest. So the Grizzlies decided to take a sharpshooting, defensive-minded guard that also fit in wonderfully age-wise with Memphis’ “window,” his name was Desmond Bane.

Gannon Rice: 3 – BPA/Fit Mix

At the end of the day, the goal in the draft is to select the player that generates the most positive impact for YOUR team, with your specific infrastructure (system, personnel, developmental team, etc.). Each pick is an estimate of the combined value of the player’s raw ability and improvement indicators (BPA), along with your team’s ability to mold and integrate that player into one that can reach their highest potential (fit). 

The unpredictability of a player’s outcome is what makes drafting perfect a near impossibility. You have to make a decision based on the stability of your team, and the chances that drafting someone with the idea that they would fit with your infrastructure now is even a possibility 3-5 years later. If you have a coach who’s on the hot seat and has a specific system he plays with, drafting a player who you hope is able to get in that system probably isn’t the best choice. Knowing your title- and playoff-contention windows is critical when making a choice between two players with different developmental curves. 

In the short term, when looking at the development of the player in the first couple years, how he will be prioritized is monumental, and this is through both from how the coaches utilize him and how much the developmental team can work on him. There may not be adequate scenarios to draft a player if you believe their positive impact to your team relies on specific playstyles and developmental work, when your team may have players with conflicting archetypes and needing of development as well. That’s where the importance of stability is so crucial to knowing what may change in the future that can open up or close the doors for the prospect you want. 

Every team in the NBA has a unique roster, culture, success window, developmental team, and coaching staff. Those operate in distinct but connective ways, and the best way to make the right pick is having a full understanding of the capabilities of each one of the components. An aspect I haven’t touched on is off the court, as you’re not just drafting a basketball player, you are drafting the person. Keeping that human element in mind will only assist you to make the right choice!

Matt Powers: 2 – BPA Preferred

I am all for best player available, with the assumption that we have the broadest possible definition of “best player” and adequate resources to support that player’s playing style. Naturally, the earlier you pick in the draft the more flexibility you will have to accommodate this, with more restrictions towards the end of the order with win-now teams. However, due to the unpredictable nature of the draft, extreme, unexpected values per pick may pop up at any given run of selections, and having a “BPA-first” approach allows you to potentially find a very good player no matter where your selections land.

The fit part comes in as there are often, and maybe just short of always, not just one good player who falls unexpectedly, but multiple. Take, for example, Detroit’s acquisition of pick #13 in the 2022 draft. On my personal board I had both AJ Griffin and Jalen Duren as extremely positive values for that pick slot, with Griffin a preference within that same tier. While AJG would be a good fit with Detroit as well (he’s good), Duren’s potential as a lob threat and pick and roll partner for Cade Cunningham made him a top 5 option for me on a Pistons-specific board.

Basketball is an extremely dynamic sport where as good players become great ones they almost always naturally improve in their fit with the rest of your team. It is very difficult to find an outright bad fit among any two or three All-Star level players, but due to the delicate nature of player development, there are indeed trade-offs for giving one player more reps in a certain context than another. Great players often make their own path to being great, but there have been countless examples of misused players on first contracts that then figure it out in a more appropriate context with another team later. Landing a star from any given spot in the draft goes a long way to improving your org’s title odds, but increasing the odds of a player finding his fit regardless of whether he becomes a true star or not has its value as well. The secondary benefits (chemistry, freedom of creativity within a given lane, clarity of role) of young players complementing each other as well should not be ignored.

The post Roundtable: Best Player or Best Fit? appeared first on Swish Theory.