1. Cameron Boozer, Duke

2. Darryn Peterson, Kansas

3. AJ Dybantsa, BYU

4. Caleb Wilson, North Carolina

5. Kingston Flemings, Houston

6. Patrick Ngongba II, Duke

7. Tyler Tanner, Vanderbilt

When Swish Theory’s Big Board 1.0 dropped on December 2nd, we ranked Tyler Tanner 33rd when no other major outlet had him ranked in the top 60. Naturally, with his meteoric rise over the past month and a half that now has him in some outlets’ top 40, he’s similarly skyrocketed up our board as well.

The first criticism of a Tanner at 7 ranking would be his measly 6-foot height… but how much does that mean when he’s dunking, finishing, rebounding, and blocking shots against SEC competition at the rate of a 6-foot-4 guard? Once you go beyond his height, you find a lead guard prospect with a blend of feel and physicality on par with the greatest guard prospects in NCAA history, who’s applied this blend towards outlier scoring development without sacrificing ancillary production. With this newfound scoring prowess further opening passing windows that he’s capitalized on, the young-for-class sophomore is now the engine of a 7th-best Vanderbilt offense while also maintaining strong defense. Boasting an incredibly well-rounded profile, the question should not be “why Tyler Tanner top 10,” but “why not Tyler Tanner top 10.”

Maurya Kumpatla

8. Yaxel Lendeborg, Michigan

Yaxel Lendeborg continues to fly up draft boards as he dominates college basketball. His BPM is off the charts, and what makes his game special is the dynamic, all-around feel he brings on both ends of the floor. How many potential defensive anchors can dribble, pass, shoot, and attack as well as Lendeborg? With good-to-great attributes as a scorer, shooter, passer, rebounder, shot-swatter, and ball-stealer via Cerebro, that all-around skillset laid on top of a potentially elite and versatile defensive foundation provides a realistic path to a super high two-way potential ceiling and offers a very high floor as a high-end NBA rotation player.

Ryan Kaminski

9. Jayden Quaintance, Kentucky

10. Joshua Jefferson, Iowa State

After some unusual (for him) struggles mid-January, Joshua Jefferson returned to form with one of the most productive prospect games of the cycle: 17 points, 12 assists (0 turnovers), 10 rebounds (4 offensive), 4 steals, 1 block. How many prospects this class could do that, or in any class? Jefferson is listed at 6’9” and is highly skilled for a 240-pound player. While outside shooting is a weakness, he has still managed an acceptable 36% on 53 threes attempted this season. But you’re drafting Jefferson for his unique intersection of passing (5.3 assists per game, 2.1 ATO), rebounding (7.0 per game), and defensive playmaking (1.6 steals, 1.0 blocks per game). All signs point towards Jefferson being one of the highest feel players in class, which, when mixed with productivity and good NBA size, has a high hit rate of working out. With a major, versatile two-way burden on a top 20 NCAA offense and defense, Jefferson can take on all kinds of roles at the next level.

Matt Powers

11. Dailyn Swain, Texas

12. Bennett Stirtz, Iowa

13. Labaron Philon, Alabama

14. Koa Peat, Arizona

15. Hannes Steinbach, Washington

16. Aday Mara, Michigan

17. Malachi Moreno, Kentucky

18. Mikel Brown Jr., Louisville

19. Christian Anderson, Texas Tech

20. Darius Acuff, Arkansas

6’2 Arkansas guard Darius Acuff has quickly become one of the more polarizing draft prospects in this year’s draft. In a class featuring impressive depth at the guard spot, Acuff has managed to stand out by shouldering one of the highest offensive burdens of any high major freshman in recent memory. Currently, Darius Acuff is sporting a 45.3 Offensive Load, which is in the 80th percentile of all draft prospects since 2008. Acuff’s prioritization of the Arkansas offense has not been unwarranted, with Arkansas’ offense sitting 7th in the country in adjusted offensive rating, per Bart Torvik. Despite Acuff having a suboptimal scoring process (38% three point attempt rate would be in the 25th percentile for all guards since 2008), he’s managed to lead a prolific offense by avoiding mistakes (2.9 assist-to-turnover ratio) and pushing the pace to allow Arkansas’ supporting cast to capitalize on their open-court athleticism. Acuff is not without his flaws, though: his lack of defensive contributions has been a major limiting factor for Arkansas’ title aspirations. Versus teams ranked in the top 150, Arkansas’ defense is 13.1 points per 100 possessions BETTER without Acuff on the floor (101 possessions). Acuff’s effort and cognizance on the defensive side of the floor leave much to be desired at the moment. However, with Acuff possessing a strong 195-pound frame and a reported 6’7 wingspan, he has the physical tools to be a potential positive and transcend the roster limitations his archetype typically imposes. Ultimately, while I am skeptical Acuff will return value commensurate with his presumed draft position, there are indicators that he may be the exception to the rule when it comes to small, ball-dominant guards.

Ahmed Jama

21. Keaton Wagler, Illinois

Keaton Wagler has been the revelation of the freshman class. The 150th-ranked high school recruit quickly established himself as the best player on an Illinois team ranked seventh in the country by KenPom and is building a case as one of the top guards in the draft. At 6’6”, Wagler has the ideal size and offensive skillset for a two guard as an efficient, high-volume sniper with passing chops. The 18-year-old also pulls down an impressive 7 rebounds per 40 minutes, an underrated statistical indicator for guard prospects. I understand being skeptical due to weak or non-existent priors, but nearly 500 minutes into his freshman season, I think it can be safely said that Keaton Wagler is a baller.

Big Wafe

22. Karim Lopez, New Zealand

23. Daniel Jacobsen, Purdue

Daniel Jacobsen is a productive sophomore center for Purdue, listed at 7’4 and 250 pounds. This all but assures that he will play in the NBA at some point, as just two NBA players this season were listed above 7’3: Zach Edey and Victor Wembanyama. 

While he appears skinny and doesn’t play a high proportion of minutes, the argument to draft Jacobsen this year simply stems from his uniquely high likelihood of playing NBA minutes. It can be construed as an argument of scarcity: without major flaws with his touch, rebounding, or shotblocking, Jacobsen immediately has plug-and-play value in the NBA. Sure, he’s clearly raw, but most drafted underclassmen are. The difficulty in correctly identifying long-term professional players with any non-premium draft pick must be considered.

Avinash Chauhan

24. Álvaro Folgueiras, Iowa

25. Tounde Yessoufou, Baylor

26. Thomas Haugh, Florida

27. Motiejus Krivas, Arizona

28. Nate Ament, Tennessee

29. Meleek Thomas, Arkansas

30. Brayden Burries, Arizona

31. Cameron Carr, Baylor

32. Braylon Mullins, UConn

33. Paul McNeil, NC State

34. Bruce Thornton, Ohio State

35. JoJo Tugler, Houston

36. Kayden Mingo, Penn State

37. Elyjah Freeman, Auburn

38. Anthony Robinson II, Missouri

39. Amari Allen, Alabama

40. Henri Veesaar, North Carolina

41. Tamin Lipsey, Iowa State

Tamin Lipsey is a strange prospect by most measures – he’s old-ish, not a great scorer, nor does he have a phenomenal free-throw rate. Still, an early second-round grade seems like great value for a player who has a monstrous 5.6 A/TO ratio and a high steal percentage. Both are great signals of cognition, and both indicate that he creates/maintains new possessions, which is an increasingly valuable trait in a game where players and teams win on the margins. Of course, the low 3P/100 rate is scary, but he’s a good finisher at the rim (even if he’s down from last season). In combination with his physicality and cognition, he seems like a great value bet to be at least a rotation guard one day.

Joseph George

42. Morez Johnson Jr., Michigan

Johnson came in at 23 on my personal board, and he’s been steadily rising throughout the season. The thesis for Morez being high on my board is the simple paradigm of age-adjusted production and impact. 

The eye test reveals archetype problems that Morez needs to solve. At 6’9, he’s undersized for a big, and his perimeter skill set doesn’t appear up to snuff for a wing or forward in the NBA right now. The good news is this: Morez’s interior dominance is NBA caliber, as he’s shooting 76.4% at the rim. His rebounding numbers are down from last year. But, he put up a whopping 17.3 ORB% and 22.5 DRB% as a true center at Illinois. He’s shown enough to suggest he can hang physically in the pros. Additionally, he’s taken a jump in assist rate, steal rate, and free-throw shooting. Morez wouldn’t have an NBA-caliber perimeter skill set upon entering the league. But this rate of improvement in his touch and cognition suggests some upside for him to get there.

It would be easy to dismiss him as a Michigan merchant, given the number of great players around him. But Morez’s impact seems to outshine that of his frontcourt teammate Aday Mara. BartTorvik has Morez at a 12.6 BPM compared to Mara’s 10.1, while Hoop-Explorer has Morez with a +11.2 RAPM compared to Mara’s +7.7. I thought I preferred Mara to Morez when I formed my board, but all evidence points to more good things happening on the court as a result of Morez Johnson. He’s not a mere passenger on the Michigan train this year; he’s a co-conductor along with Yaxel Lendeborg. This is a fascinating player and prospect that deserves top 20 consideration in the 2026 draft.

Michael Neff

43. Ebuka Okorie, Stanford

44. Neoklis Avdalas, Virginia Tech

45. Killyan Toure, Iowa State

46. Zvonimir Ivisic, Arkansas

47. Isaiah Evans, Duke

48. Flory Bidunga, Kansas

49. Braden Smith, Purdue

50. Ja’Kobi Gillespie, Tennessee

51. JT Toppin, Texas Tech

52. Nolan Winter, Wisconsin

53. Nate Bittle, Oregon

54. Jalen Washington, Vanderbilt

55. Matt Able, NC State

56. Chris Cenac Jr., Houston

57. Darrion Williams, NC State

58. Acaden Lewis, Villanova

59. Richie Saunders, BYU

60. Mario Saint-Supery, Gonzaga

The post 2026 NBA Draft Big Board 2.0 appeared first on Swish Theory.

In the previous article I wrote analyzing Tre Johnson, I alluded to the changing perspective of front offices and fans alike regarding the draft. The 2024 cycle was an emphatic indication of the sea change in teams’ approach to the event. With players from Reed Sheppard to Zach Edey being selected with high picks, it became apparent that teams were prioritizing cerebral players with analytically sound profiles over those with traits more traditionally associated with high upside.

What drove me to write about Kon was how representative his journey was of this shifting dynamic. Widely recognized as a subpar athlete by NBA standards, due to the optics of Knueppel’s game, I doubt he would have ever been considered worthy of a top-5 pick even as recently as a decade ago. However, because of his stellar efficiency and deserved reputation as an intelligent player, the Hornets’ selection of Knueppel was seen as a no-brainer.

My intent with writing this piece was to figure out one thing: has the pendulum swung too far? At what point is it acceptable to go against conventional draft logic and select a player whose deficiencies would have been considered disqualifying in previous eras? By investigating both contextual and individual statistics, in tandem with tape dating back 2 years, I found myself in firm disagreement with the direction the Hornets ultimately went in.

The Beginning

Standing slightly over 6’6 in shoes with a 6’6.25″ wingspan, Kon Knueppel may have left this draft with the highest approval rating of any non-Cooper Flagg prospect. Knueppel’s playstyle eschewed norms typically associated with star level production, he relied on technique and guile in lieu of dynamic physical traits. His fundamentally sound game, paired with an inscrutable demeanor, and an overwhelming amount of team success quickly earned Knueppel fans. And Kon would finish with one of the most impressive underclassman seasons from a perimeter player in recent memory, inserting himself into the group below along with fellow one-and-done Jase Richardson.

What makes Kon such a compelling case study isn’t just his ascension from fringe top-40 recruit at the beginning of his final AAU campaign, to top-5 draft pick 2 years later, but the rapid and tangible development he made in that span.

To gain a complete understanding of Kon’s game we must begin with his time spent on the grassroots circuit. Knueppel’s scoring and scoring efficiency have remained constants over the course of his career, having led his EYBL age group in scoring for 3 consecutive years and never once dipped under 60% True Shooting. However, outside of the high-volume flamethrowing from deep, Knueppel’s utilization at Duke held a faint resemblance to his time playing AAU.

During Kon’s time playing his AAU team, Phenom University, he served as the focal point of a motion offense. PhenomU would run concepts broadly similar to Duke, but with drastically different objectives. PhenomU frequently schemed looks for Knueppel to post-up in the middle of the floor, where his combination of size, strength, and touch were enough to overwhelm opponents at the high-school level. Actions like ‘Cross Punch’..

Outside of these schemed looks Knueppel was the frequent recipient of opportunistic buckets made possible by the Motion Offense and the miscommunication it brought about in opposing defenses.

And although these principles aren’t incompatible with quality offense at the collegiate or professional level, they did leave Knueppel unrefined in certain areas which became significantly more relevant during his time at Duke. One example would be Kon’s relative inefficiency attacking closeouts, where he was comfortable settling for short range jumpers and would seldom applied pressure on the rim.

Starting at Duke

Kon’s shift in usage once arriving at Duke was abrupt and apparent, the aforementioned post-ups and cuts were largely replaced with PNR ballhandling reps, as evinced below.

And for someone who came into the season a vocal proponent of Kon, frankly, the beginning of his Duke career was largely underwhelming. Duke almost exclusively schemed two plays for Knueppel, the first of which being ‘Zipper Stagger PNR‘, which exposed his inexperience operating out of ballscreens,

and the second play which comprised the majority of Knueppel’s organized offense was ‘Pin Ricky Flare‘, where again Knueppel struggled to generate quality looks if he wasn’t provided the requisite space to attempt a 3.

There definitely wasn’t a singular culprit behind Knueppel’s ineffectiveness as a driver, but the most obvious contributing factor was the misalignment between Duke’s offensive approach and Knueppel’s habits inside the arc. As previously mentioned, when Kon was ran off the 3-point line in highschool he expressed no urgency in getting to the rim, and was perfectly content with taking longer 2PA. Duke was the first setting where this characteristic of Knueppel’s game was met with resistance. In Jon Scheyer’s short time at the helm, an early emphasis he has made known is his desire for his teams to maintain a modern shot profile. In every subsequent year of Scheyer’s tenure, Duke has reduced their volume of midrange attempts.

The clash between the playstyle Scheyer had implemented within his team, and Knueppel’s personal style of play lead to ugly moments early on. With Knueppel’s ballhandling skills being fairly underdeveloped for his new, more perimeter oriented role, Kon attempted to rely on his physicality on create space and find finishing windows on drives. Knueppel’s forays towards the rim often lacked pace, and oftentimes Kon would over-penetrate and place himself in compromising positions inside the paint.

At roughly the halfway mark of the season, Knueppel’s statistical profile was far from the stellar marks he would finish the season with.

The Transformation

The defining change in Kon’s game this past season was undoubtedly his ability and effectiveness getting to the rim. Not only did his rim-rate increase by 8% from his final season of AAU to this past season, the complexion of these rim attempts also radically changed. Hand-tracking Knueppel’s rim-finishes reveals a player progressing from a forward to an out and out guard.

Knueppel having his playtype distribution significantly altered, while being forced to largely abandon his most reliable interior counters, AND STILL maintaining the efficiency he’d displayed at previous levels is borderline miraculous. And the catalyst for this improvement were the gains Knueppel made as a ballhandler.

While I still wouldn’t view Knueppel as an elite ballhandler by any means, the strides he made in this area, in conjunction with his physicality, made him a potent driver by season’s end.

For large swaths of the season, Knueppel’s inability to handle ball pressure or digs on his drives consistently prevented him from creating quality paint touches.

And I have a theory as to what was behind Knueppel’s leap as a ballhandler and driver. Kon seems to have married the technical gains he made, specifically developing better ball-control and an improvement altering ball-speeds, with the strong footwork foundation he already possessed from all the years spent playing out of the post. Post footwork translating to other facets of the game is an axiom espoused by coaches everywhere, and Knueppel seems to be the most recent testament to this. As the season progressed Knueppel was more capable of keeping his dribble alive inside the arc, making him a more potent scorer and playmaker.

Towards the end of the season, Knueppel started to thrive in the same actions that he’d previously been out of his depth in. Below is a succession of ‘Zipper Stagger PNR‘ plays conducted sublimely by Kon. Even when he isn’t able to finish the play with a basket it is abundantly clear the process is better.

When faced with slightly more exotic coverages Knueppel showed to be up to the task. Compare the clips compiled below, in the initial play versus Kansas. Knueppel is hedged as he runs the ballscreen and immeditely swings the ball at the first sign of ball pressure. The subsequent plays Knueppel keeps his dribble alive, turns the corner, and either draws a foul at the rim or finds an open teammate.

Knueppel’s enhanced foul-drawing compared to previous seasons was evident,

but what I found most impressive about this was how the in-season free-throw rate progression was equally significant.

What this shows is Knueppel recognized the respect he had as a shooter and parlayed the hard closeouts he was receiving into rim-attacks.

As delved further and further into Kon’s career, his self-awareness and work ethic became increasingly apparent. To acclimate this quickly when confronted with change is impressive from any player, never mind a freshman being thrust into the greatest pressure cooker program in college basketball.

A point raised by the always insightful Mike Gribanov (@mikegrib8 on X) was how notable it was for a team to achieve the level of success 2024-25 Duke did while primarily featuring underclassmen. Especially considering how veteran-laden the current college basketball landscape is, I wanted to establish a frame of reference for exactly how rare it was for a player to produce at the level Kon did this past season without the benefit of having experienced teammates. Using KenPom’s ‘Experience Rankings’, which weighs the age of their roster by minutes played, along with some other offensive efficiency and self creation metrics yielded the list below.

Unsurprisingly these thresholds produced a list of offensively slanted perimeter players, but at first glance what caught my eye was how size seemed to have a polarizing effect on this group’s NBA translation. The majority of players who returned overly positive EV from the query seemed to be clustered on the shorter end of the height distribution. However, height having a negative correlation with an all-in-one metric like Estimated Wins goes against all I know about these catch all stats, so I looked elsewhere. And what emerged as the obvious contributing factor to this relationship was the share of a player’s shots which were assisted.

Here lie my Koncerns

To see the strength of the relationship between this group of players’ NBA impact and their pre-NBA self-creation burdens I ran a simple linear regression.

While the  r² here is moderately strong, again there are only so many conclusions to be drawn from what was already a small and fairly curated sample. Where the value lies in this cursory analysis is in illuminating how misleading scoring efficiency can be. The list above is littered with players who couldn’t shoulder a higher creation burden and were too deficient in other areas to warrant serious consideration for playing time. Herein lies the challenge in projecting Kon Knueppel, will he be able to become a load-bearing player for an elite offense and/or round out his game enough defensively to avoid being placed in basketball purgatory?

The Case for Helio-Kon

A case frequently made in support of Kon’s primary upside was his potential to develop into a high volume foul-drawer. We’ve already addressed the strides he’s made in this department, so could this trend continue in the league? In short, I am skeptical Knueppel is next in line of the Morey-ball disciples. Of course the absence of dunks in Kon’s resume has been discussed ad-nauseam (this past season Knueppel actually doubled the number of dunks he’d made over the course of his entire AAU career, with 2), its how often Kon has his shot-blocked at the rim that is my greatest cause for concern. Knueppel had 7% of his FGA blocked at Duke, per Synergy, which isn’t a particularly disqualifying number on its own, but puts him in a precarious position when compared to his now peers in the NBA.

Again, this is not an exhaustive sample we’re drawing from, but there’s no recent precedent for a player with Knueppel’s lack of vertical explosion becoming a formidable rim-pressure guard. In fact I think Knueppel, and the majority of the Duke players this past season, saw their driving efficacy greatly augmented by the presence of Khaman Maluach. Individually, Duke did not roster any players known for their prowess getting downhill, and Maluach was chiefly responsible for providing rim-pressure for the team. Clips like the ones below are examples of the attention Maluach demanded on the interior. In each clipped possession there’s a freeze frame on Maluach’s defender showing the defense’s approach, they were almost never willing to send help on Knueppel’s drives should they risk giving up an easy putback or dumpoff to Maluach.

Duke lead the nation this past season in Wide Open threes, and while their connective passing and willingness to forgo good shots for great ones definitely deserves credit, the attention Maluach demanded as a roller greatly simplified reads for Duke ballhandlers.

Again my friend and tan incredible draft mind in his own right @NileHoops beat me to the presses in writing about the inflation in perception many Duke prospects were granted due to Maluach’s gravity, and I would strongly recommend reading his draft notes here on the matter: https://medium.com/@Nile/nile-presents-2025-nba-draft-master-notes-part-2-of-3-626ef75aefbb.

Knueppel’s statistical fluctuations corroborate this relationship. Per Hoop -Explorer Knueppel’s AST% and rim-rate declined substantially in minutes without Maluach versus the minutes he shared with the superstar big.

This effect reverberated throughout the Duke squad, with the team’s mid-range frequency skyrocketing while their PNR frequency plummeted. Recall earlier when Jon Scheyer’s mid-range aversion was mentioned, without Maluach on the court Duke was forced into taking shots they were explicitly advised against.

Debunking the notion that Knueppel will develop into a prolific driver and free-throw grifter at the next level doesn’t necessarily preclude offensive primacy. After all, many of the players presented early as potential analogues found their way by becoming elite pull-up shooters. Knueppel’s shooting profile definitely makes this the likeliest outcome, but there’s still evidence his stellar touch indicators may belie how long a process it will be for Knueppel to reach these heights.

While Knueppel shot 12/30 on pull-up 3s in his final year of AAU, 10 of these makes came in transition or semi-transition, where he had a cleaner platform to self-organize for these attempts.

In the half-court Knueppel’s issues regaining balance on the move and creating space in close quarters were more evident. Even at lower levels Knueppel struggled getting his shot off cleanly under duress, the aforementioned 7% blocked FGA rate at Duke was identical in AAU.

And of course this isn’t to say Knueppel will be easily neutralized as a shooter at the next level, these are somewhat granular issues I fully believe will be addressed and ameliorated in the long run. But my thinking is the tandem of weaker change-of-direction ability and a drastically slower pace (Duke was 266th in Adjusted Tempo) was behind Knueppel’s precipitous fall from a 42% (30/72) off-the-dribble 3P shooter during AAU, to only making 1/18 3PA off the bounce in college. And the acclimatization period Knueppel would need to round his shooting into form could muddle his long-term offensive projection.

The Defense

As limiting as Knueppel’s change-of-direction is offensively, I think it could be truly debilitating on defense. For as much as Duke’s offensive scheme placed Knueppel in an uncomfortable situation early, the defensive scheme greatly compensated for his flaws. Duke’s conservative switching scheme paired with their ++ positional size (1st in the country in average height and 10th in effective height) masked Knueppel’s deficiencies. The team’s penchant for dragging out possessions with their constant switching, along with the deterrence afforded by their backline size, left a minimal amount of ground for Knueppel to cover in any given possession. I think plays like the clips below are responsible for some overstating Knueppel’s defensive ability, in these possessions Kon is guarding under circumstances where Duke’s already effectively ‘won’ the possession by merit of these players either attacking Knueppel in isolation or driving into a congested paint.

The areas where Knueppel’s difficulties changing speed and direction manifested most consistently were guarding capable pull-up shooters. Knueppel’s inability to mirror these smaller players forced him to give them a cushion, without the length to compensate for the distance he provided Knueppel was prone to ceding acres of space on these attempts.

Maybe even more glaring than Knueppel’s issues guarding pull-up shooters was his total inability to navigate screens. Kon almost never remained attached when tasked with working over screens, and when a teammate wasn’t in position to immediately switch onto Knueppel’s assignment an immense pressure was placed on help defenders to correct for the breakdown. Screen navigation for Kon is another struggle which has persisted since high school.

Predictably Knueppel’s issues changing direction were reflected in his agility testing. Although Kon’s jumps impressed relative to expectations, his 3/4 court sprint and lane agility only added to what was already a bleak defensive projection.

Final Takeaways

My intention with writing this piece is not to pan the Hornets for selecting Kon, but in the wake of Summer League I think now is an appropriate time to adjust expectations before a few inconsequential games dilute any evaluation. As it stands currently, there’s an overwhelming amount of data suggesting that even projecting Kon as a neutral defender may be unrealistic. The most likely outcome seems to be that Kon will be left in limbo defensively, he’ll unable to guard backcourt players because of his poor footspeed, and with no supplementary rim-protection or rebounding skills to speak of Kon will bleed possessions as a frontcourt defender. In search of players at Kon’s size who were also lacking in athletic traits yielded a mixed bag. There’s a handful of positive defenders here, even amongst the highlighted players who hit these thresholds in their pre-draft season. But outside of Cameron Johnson and Khris Middleton, who only hit this threshold in their freshman year (and Middleton was 0.3 DRBD% away from falling out entirely), there’s no other players who would be considered top 5 in their respective draft.

The list of players with Kon’s offensive resume to justify such high draft capital is even slimmer.

While it may seem encouraging that Desmond Bane is included in this group because Kon was frequently compared to him throughout the cycle, Bane’s dunks only bottomed out when he was thrust into a primary role. Bane saw his PNR volume almost quadruple from his Junior to Senior year, and this shit in usage coincided with the lowest number of dunks in his college career.

As heavily as I rely on these statistical queries to inform my opinion, I think its necessary to include all players’ seasons as a reminder of the developmental dichotomy. It seems as often as players undergo these outlier developmental arcs there are as many, if not more, players whose weaknesses crystallize much quicker than we’re willing to acknowledge. In Kon’s case, there’s little reason to believe an athletic transformation is on the horizon. And if he’s going to be a defender who needs specific lineup configurations to stay on the floor will his offense warrant those accommodations? The in-season improvement previously outlined gives me more confidence in Kon eventually ‘guard-ifying’ his shot profile and becoming a more capable creator off the bounce. But the idea that the self-sustainability of Kon’s offense can be reasonably doubted is enough to preclude from being a top 5 pick.

The post Summer League Primer: A Comprehensive Kon Knueppel Scouting Report appeared first on Swish Theory.

This series will inspect all ten categories by highlighting three standout performers for each trait. My hope is that my process for evaluating this trait will improve with the exercise, inspecting my own criteria, while also recognizing just how rare each trait is.

First up, perhaps the most important category of all: three point shooting.

Note the rankings relate to who will have the most three point success in the NBA more than the most three point talent (eliminating specialists like the incredible shooter Koby Brea).

#1: Tre Johnson

Listed at 6’6”, Texas Longhorns, Freshman, 19.3 on draft day

Tre Johnson’s greatness as a three-point shooter is perhaps the most self-evident of the draft, as it takes only one shot of his to react, “Oh, he can shoot.” The aesthetics are stellar: Johnson has an appropriately wide base, hopping light into the shot before rising up with intention.

Look at how he perfectly squares from a 90-degree gather in one of the clips above:

He perfectly angles his shooting pocket:

And snaps his wrist hard while releasing high:

It is hard to ask for more in a shooting form, with his fluidity especially notable given his 6’6” height.

He meets very high thresholds for outside shooting, statistically. High major freshmen with his level of three point volume and efficiency are rare, as all 6’3” or above NCAA players with his profile have stuck in the NBA.

His flexibility of gather, skilled in footwork, allows him to be successful in all kinds of actions:

• 17 for 31 (55%) on threes running off of screens
• 23 for 52 (44%) on threes in transition
• 12 for 28 (43%) on threes out of pick and roll
• 5 for 12 (42%) off of handoffs

The two lagging in efficiency are spot ups (24 for 71, 34% from three) and isos (7 for 25, 28% from three). He was surprisingly just as efficient on guarded catch and shoot (42%) than unguarded (39%), with the open ones actually dragging down his spot up efficiency. Given his fundamentals and success hitting the difficult ones, I’m not too worried about him figuring out the simple. In fact, he was 44% on unguarded threes in his final high school season.

I have gotten higher on Tre Johnson over this process, as his elite three-point versatility matches his elite three-point efficiency. The isolations are the one concern, as he struggles to create space, but hopefully will represent only a small volume of his NBA looks. His ability to counter when the defense commits in pick-and-roll (39th %ile efficiency, including passes) is also a concern for his overall shotmaking difficulty, but he has the talent and range to overcome it. While that lack of quick burst and the defense hold back his ceiling, his combination of nuclear shooting off of movement and strong passing instincts makes him impossible to pass up in the lottery.

#2: Walter Clayton Jr.

Listed at 6’3”, Florida Gators, Senior, 22.3 on draft day

Walter Clayton Jr.’s appeal is also immediately clear in the tape, but for a different reason: the degree of difficulty. In particular, Clayton Jr. is elite from NBA distance, having to be covered far beyond the NCAA three-point line.

This is a major defensive breakdown:

As is this:

Also obvious from the tape is how comfortably Clayton Jr. gathers both left to right and right to left off of movement or the dribble. His core strength allows him to stay square with torque when rising up in an instant. He is an extremely confident shooter, ensuring he commits to every shot with intent.

Perhaps even at a better level than Johnson, Clayton Jr. can re-square his shoulders rapidly. Because he is smaller but a good leaper, he can spring in any direction to counter-balance his motion. It’s a delight to watch.

Despite what had to be among the most difficult three-point diets in the NCAA, Clayton Jr.’s three-point percentage was very good at 38.6% on 303 attempts, seventh most in the country. He also shot a stellar 87.9% from the line on 481 career free throw attempts. After this past season, there is plenty of evidence that Clayton Jr. is an elite shooter.

Clayton’s core strength and comfortability moving laterally, confidence in his shot all allow him to be successful in a variety of play types. In fact, Clayton was 71st percentile efficiency or better in seven different play types:

• 42% on 45 threes in transition
• 40% on 75 threes spotting up
• 39% on 23 threes off of screens
• 36% on 14 threes in isolation
• 36% on 42 threes off of handoffs
• 35% on 102 threes as pick and roll ball handler

Walter Clayton Jr. is an obvious bet to be a nuclear NBA shooter, due to his ability to pull up quickly from distance as well as off of movement. His resume is excellent, leading a great Florida team through the NCAA tournament. Difficulty means streakiness, but Clayton is on far more often than he is off, and when he is on, he can drive a scoring run single-handedly.

The downsides come elsewhere, namely in his somewhat below-average handle and passing for a 6’3″player, which keeps him from having creation equity. He can sometimes fall asleep on defense (such as in the final moments of the NCAA championship game) but makes up for it with elite recovery tools (displayed in the few moments after, in addition to strong 2.5% steal and 1.8% block rates over his college career).

Because Clayton Jr. is 6’3”, a good leaper and capable of getting threes up with volume like no other in this class, he resembles a first-round pick. Even if the non-shooting traits lag, they are good enough to stay on the floor to allow his shooting to shine.

#3: Kon Knueppel

Listed at 6’7”, Duke Blue Devils, Freshman, 19.9 on draft day

Kon Knueppel’s excellence might not be as obvious as that of Clayton Jr. or Johnson. He shines through technique, consistency, and, well, track record.

We have enough data on Knueppel to suggest he is an elite shotmaker. Let’s start with catch and shoot. Knueppel has now had three consecutive seasons of shooting over 40% on catch-and-shoot threes, giving him a career 42% mark on 419 catch-and-shoot looks.

Despite the dip in his form, Knueppel has an otherwise compact motion, easily repeatable. My favorite thing about the form is he “finishes heavy,” that is, exaggerates the end of his form to get extra lift but also gain consistency of motion.

He typically fully lands back on the ground while still holding his follow-through:

This consistency of technique, in addition to a low center of gravity, permits Kon to rise up off the catch even off of movement.

The pull-up figures are iffier, with little success at Duke. But looking at the EYBL statistics and tape gives one much more comfort.

When given more of a green light to let it fly – two pull-ups threes per game in Phenom 16-17U compared to 0.5 at Duke – he looks much more comfortable and flowy off the dribble. In fact, he was capable of shooting out of complex set ups like at the 0:50 mark of his highlight video above.

If Knueppel had been enabled to be an off-the-dribble gunner, I have no doubt his efficiency would have risen at Duke. Knueppel reminds me of Desmond Bane here: Bane has the instinct to put the ball on the floor even just once to induce a defender fly-by. With a similar high feel for picking his spots, I expect Knueppel to do the same with success.

Not too much commentary needed here; Knueppel is among the elite free-throw shooters. Of NCAA players with at least 100 free throw attempts, Knueppel ranked fifth in free throw percentage, the only one in the top ten 6’7″ or above.

Even with the poor pull-up shooting, Knueppel hit some gaudy marks for a high-major freshman. Since 2008, there have been only four other high-major freshmen in his vicinity: Tre Johnson, Ben McLemore, Jared McCain, and Tyler Herro. Kon meets the below thresholds with ease.

I’ve only gotten higher on Kon Knueppel with each subsequent watch. While my initial instinct was to fade him given the athletic limitations (the track record for players who miss most of their dunk attempts is not good), likely not 6’7”. However, his instincts for rotations and how to wall off drives keep him relevant on that end.

A minimum level of defensive contribution is all that is needed for Knueppel’s three point shooting to potentially take over games (not to mention his passing acumen). While not as much of an aesthetic/degree of difficulty play as Tre or Clayton, Knueppel has the track record and eye for technique / when to shoot that gives a high level of faith in his three ball being excellent. With his integration of other skills, draft Kon in the top 10.

Value Analysis

Three point shooting is the most prized ability in the titular “three point era,” and for a reason. Shooting from outside the furthest ring of the defense can be the most reliable way to generate looks. Our three three point shooters are able to do just that, bombing away even with small creases — all three are reliable to get a high volume of attempts in a variety of ways.

Simply, beating three levels of defense (perimeter defenders, help defenders, rim protectors) is the most valuable thing you can do on the court. Especially as three point volume is almost always scalable. If you want more threes, you can have them: the quality of the looks will decline, but it is unlike midrange or rim attempts which require a higher level of passing and/or dribbling to get there. For our three shooters, the area over which you have to cover them with their deep range and quick triggers is massive.

As this series goes on, I will try to note the relative value of each trait, and why. Threes are our first trait, but, from my analysis, also the single most valuable. Next up, we move slightly closer to the basket – the oft-theorized midrange.

The post 2025 NBA Draft Superlatives: Three Point Shooters appeared first on Swish Theory.

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

1. Cooper Flagg, Duke

Do-it-all wing with premium skill and athleticism

2. Dylan Harper, Rutgers

Bruising driving guard and potent scorer

3. Collin Murray-Boyles, South Carolina

Elite playmaking forward on both sides of the ball

4. VJ Edgecombe, Baylor

Explosive scoring guard and lockdown defender

5. Khaman Maluach, Duke

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

6. Derik Queen, Maryland

Creative big-bodied drive threat who can pass

7. Jeremiah Fears, Oklahoma

Young lead guard with dribble, pass, shoot upside

8. Ace Bailey, Rutgers

Versatile shooting wing with dynamic athleticism

9. Tre Johnson, Texas

Tough shotmaker all over the court

10. Jase Richardson, Michigan State

Three-level scoring guard with quick processing

11. Kasparas Jakucionis, Illinois

Pull-up maestro with passing creativity

12. Kon Knueppel, Duke

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

13. Asa Newell, Georgia

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

14. Noa Essengue, ULM

Sinewy rim attacker with budding ball skills and defensive versatility

15. Thomas Sorber, Georgetown

Tough freshman PF with strong feel for the game

16. Noah Penda, Le Mans

Menacing wing defender and offensive connector

17. Labaron Philon, Alabama

Gadgety, versatile, productive guard every team could use

18. Miles Byrd, San Diego State

Stocks machine with shooting potential

19. Ben Saraf, ULM

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

20. Bennett Stirtz, Drake

Potentially underrated lead guard up-transfer from Division II

21. Nolan Traore, Saint-Quentin

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

22. Nique Clifford, Colorado State

Fluid-moving upperclassman who does a little of everything

23. Kam Jones, Marquette

Paint touch machine, three-level scorer who can pass

24. Rasheer Fleming, Saint Joseph’s

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

25. Johni Broome, Auburn

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

26. Danny Wolf, Michigan

Unique ball-handling point center with quick processing skills

27. Liam McNeeley, Connecticut

Three-point threat who attacks closeouts looking to finish strong

28. Carter Bryant, Arizona

Talented freshman wing providing a punch off the bench

29. Ryan Kalkbrenner, Creighton

Big man upperclassman who dominates the paint on both ends

30. JT Toppin, Texas Tech

High motor, high producing rim attacker

31. Yaxel Lendeborg, UAB

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

32. Anthony Robinson II, Missouri

Point-of-attack demon with some ball skills

33. Tahaad Pettiford, Auburn

Dribble-pass-shoot quick small guard

34. Will Riley, Illinois

Under-developed young wing shooter and passer

35. Adou Thiero, Arkansas

Physical slasher who creates events on defense

36. Joshua Jefferson, Iowa State

Physical defender with some connector chops as a big wing

37. Egor Demin, BYU

Elite passer with inconsistent play against top competition

38. Darrion Williams, Texas Tech

Skilled upperclassman who can shoot and pass from the wing

39. Alex Condon, Florida

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

40. Walter Clayton Jr.

High volume three point shooter who can do some guard things

41. JoJo Tugler, Houston

+12 wingspan for this mobile rim protector

42. Boogie Fland, Arkansas

Game managing shooter and passer

43. Hugo Gonzalez, Real Madrid

Toolsy high motor player with versatility

44. Flory Bidunga, Kansas

Undersized but hyper-athletic rangy big

45. Alex Karaban, Connecticut

Elite shooter and wing defender, national champion

46. Dailyn Swain, Xavier

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

47. Javon Small, West Virginia

Highly productive lead guard essential to WVU

48. Rocco Zikarsky, Brisbane

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

49. Ian Jackson, North Carolina

Pure scoring freshman who can catch fire like few others

50. Bogoljub Markovic, KK Mega

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

51. Drake Powell, North Carolina

Hyperactive freshman defender with shooting potential

52. Tomislav Ivisic, Illinois

Floor-spacing center and ball-mover

53. Chad Baker-Mazara, Auburn

Upperclassman utility wing with a smooth shot

54. Zvonimir Ivisic, Arkansas

PNR roll & pop 7’2” big

55. Max Shulga, VCU

Strong combo guard who can run some PNR

56. Xaivian Lee, Princeton

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

57. Alvaro Folgueiras, Robert Morris

Ultra-versatile big wing hiding in mid majors

58. Eric Dixon, Villanova

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

59. Otega Oweh, Kentucky

Tough-nosed defender and transition threat

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

1. Washington Wizards: Cooper Flagg, Duke

Cooper Flagg is a primary offensive option, one of the best defensive players in the country, leading a top ten team as a true 18-year-old freshman after being the highest-rated American High School prospect since… Anthony Davis? Yet somehow the discourse surrounding him to start the year has developed a negative tint. This is a special prospect, even if he doesn’t become the literal reincarnation of LeBron James. Two-way forwards do not grow on trees and their importance to playoff basketball cannot be understated. A foundation of Cooper Flagg and Bilal Coulibaly is an ideal starting point for building a roster meant for May and June. While Washington might not have your typical “star creator” on the roster they are not in a place to be drafting for context at the top of the draft. These kinds of players are worth their weight in gold, and the Wizards are running to the bank.

– Tyler Wilson

2. New Orleans Pelicans: Dylan Harper, Rutgers

Dylan Harper is a natural scoring creator with legitimate two-way feel; Dylan dices up defenses with ease. Harper consistently creates good looks for himself and his teammates, forces turnovers on defense, plays with a grab-and-go pace, and scores tough shots at every level. Dylan’s downhill explosiveness jumps off the page with incredible body control to decelerate, finish at the rim, draw fouls, and kick out to open shooters. Dylan looks like this draft class’ best primary halfcourt offensive engine who can create good looks for the team every time down the floor. With Zion, Herb Jones, and Trey Murphy flanking him in the frontcourt, adding Dylan Harper to the mix opens up the Pelicans’ options to build around this exciting walking bucket.

– Ryan Kaminski

3. Utah Jazz: Derik Queen, Maryland

The 6’10 Derik Queen will go to the Utah Jazz in the upcoming NBA Draft, and it’s easy to see why. His exceptional skillset makes him a highly coveted player for any team, but especially for the Jazz at this point in the draft. With a blend of feel, versatility, and impressive court vision, Queen can impact games in multiple facets. The ability to grab the ball off the glass and show off how comfortable he is as a ball handler in the open floor will be a headache for teams. Coaches can deploy him in delay actions, chin, dribble handoffs as the operator and trust him to make the right reads. The potential of having a pair as skilled as Lauri Markkanen and Queen could lead to not only fun for fans, but also wins.

– Larry Golden

4. Toronto Raptors: Collin Murray-Boyles, South Carolina

Despite having played this season in relative obscurity compared to other highly touted draft prospects, Collin Murray-Boyles has made significant developments to his game which should see him garner heavy consideration at the top of the class. During Murray-Boyles’ freshman campaign he played a more complementary role for South Carolina and thrived as a play finisher and opportunistic playmaker. So far this season, Murray-Boyles’ usage has been significantly scaled up and he’s gotten MORE efficient as a scorer. Of the 14 players in the country 6’7 or taller with over a 25% Usage Rate, Murray-Boyles possesses the highest True-Shooting% and the second-highest assist rate. What these statistical thresholds convey is Murray-Boyles’ presenting one of the most unique intersections of size and playmaking ability in the class. While I understand the Raptors’ faithful may have some consternation about Murray-Boyles’ fit with their resident jumbo-playmaker in Scottie Barnes, I believe this is a misguided thought for a team still seeking identity. At this phase of their team-building process the Raptors cannot afford to draft for fit and Murray-Boyles, in my estimation, is the best player remaining on the board.

– Ahmed Jama

5. Charlotte Hornets: Thomas Sorber, Georgetown

Charlotte secures their star big of the future with Thomas Sorber. A rotation of Mark Williams, Nick Richards, and Miles Bridges at center has resulted in three straight bottom-10 defensive seasons. Sorber’s 10.8% stock rate and +4.5 defensive BPM using physical dominance, feel, fluidity, and hand-eye coordination promise instant remedies. His athleticism, touch, and processing fit immediately as a play finisher with LaMelo Ball and as a dribble-handoff hub with Brandon Miller, while his massive offensive rebounding-stocks-assists integration (10.0% offensive rebound and 16.5% assist rates), tons of interior craft (78th percentile post-up efficiency), and ample shooting indicators dating back to high school (37.9% on non-rim twos and 71.6% on free-throws pre-NCAA) enable further pathways for development.

– Maurya Kumpatla

6. Portland Trailblazers: Ace Bailey, Rutgers

Portland is a team in an interesting spot, as they have a lot of intriguing younger players but lack a clear direction for their roster. Ace makes a lot of sense for them as arguably the best player available who also fits in nicely around some of their other core pieces with his length, shotmaking, and defensive upside. Portland would be a good landing spot for Ace as well, as they have enough ball handling and guard play to be able to ease him in offensively and let him work off the ball rather than overtasking him in a creator role.

– AJ Carter

7. Oklahoma City Thunder: VJ Edgecombe, Baylor

The OKC Thunder keep getting stronger, adding another top-10 pick to their already-loaded young core. As the No. 1 seed in the West, their defense has been a force, built on aggressively forcing turnovers through blocks and steals. Enter VJ Edgecombe, the only freshman to post a 5% mark in both steal and block rates—making him the perfect fit for this defensive juggernaut. Joining the Thunder gives him the ideal situation to showcase his defensive strengths while sharpening his offensive game. The Thunder’s guard room is stacked, but the chance to work on his shot with Chip Engelland and reduce driving turnovers in OKC’s spaced-out drive-and-kick offense should do wonders for VJ’s offensive development.

– Roshan Potluri

8. Brooklyn Nets: Jeremiah Fears, Oklahoma

Jeremiah Fears could lock up the Brooklyn Nets’ point guard position for the foreseeable future. The Oklahoma freshman has taken up huge usage (most in the SEC) despite only recently turning 18. There are few chances for heliocentric upside in this class, and Fears might have it with his dribble/pass/shoot potential and early returns. With patience, technique, and surprising strength beyond his years (he draws a TON of fouls), Fears will be a tough cover at any level. He’s not a pushover on defense, either, securing over two steals per game with limited fouling. The Nets could give Fears a long enough runway to see just how high that upside is.

– Matt Powers

9. Detroit Pistons: Asa Newell, Georgia

I’m aware this choice may feel somewhat controversial. Detroit was not a team I found terribly easy to draft for. I strongly considered Kasparas as an off-ball shotmaker alongside Cade, which I believe to be Kasparas’ ideal role. Newell is a guy I’m higher on than consensus, I buy the shooting relative to the numbers and the general scalability, which Detroit needs. They don’t have a tonne of long-term versatility within their core, and I buy Newell being able to slot in alongside whatever they want to do. He just feels like the exact type of player they need in the half-court and I buy Bickerstaff being a good coach for him, which matters.

– Joe Hulbert

10. Chicago Bulls: Kasparas Jakucionis, Illinois

It’s been a while since the Bulls have had a point guard who can make things happen in the halfcourt and create for their teammates consistently. Jakucionis is a 6’6 point guard with true star upside who flashes elite passing skills, pull-up shooting, and driving. In 177 possessions as the pick and roll ball handler he scores a 0.944 in PPP which is good enough for 64th percentile. The shooting off the dribble has been rock steady as he’s taken 36 and made 47%, even before arriving at Illinois it’s been a true strength of his which is a very desirable skill in the NBA. This would be a no-brainer pick for the Chicago Bulls.

– Larry Golden

11. Sacramento Kings: Liam McNeeley, UConn

A high volume 3pt sniper handoff extraordinaire who attacks closeouts with a myriad of tools, Liam McNeeley slides right into the Kings’ schemes. McNeeley brings 3-point shot versatility (C&S, pull-up, movement) and counters closeouts by attacking the rack looking to posterize anyone in his path. In Montverde’s loaded starting unit of Cooper Flagg, Asa Newell, Derik Queen, and Rob Wright, McNeeley would often end up the leading scorer as a floor-spacing play-finishing scoring valve who could heat up at any moment. Whether he’s backing up Malik Monk and Kevin Huerter or replacing them, McNeeley can fill a similar role playing off the strong screen DHO playmaking of Domantas Sabonis, whether De’Aaron Fox stays in town or not.

– Ryan Kaminski

12. San Antonio Spurs: Jase Richardson, Michigan State

Steering away from their affinity towards lengthy, athletic defensive-minded wings nets San Antonio one of the most well-polished offensive prospects in the class. Jase Richardson kills with productivity by extracting the most out of every touch; few can match his balanced shot distribution and monster offensive efficiency (74% true shooting and 3.7 assist-to-turnover ratio). His integration of versatile shooting, driving, and pristine decision-making gives him a high floor with tons of role malleability as a spot-up shooter and second-side creator. Still, Richardson has consistently scaled up production in games with higher doses of usage in a way that gives hope for untapped on-ball upside: he has a 74.5% true shooting in games with <15% usage versus 78.2% in games with >15% usage.

– Maurya Kumpatla

13. Atlanta Hawks: Tre Johnson, Texas

Atlanta already has several long-term pieces in place (Trae Young, Dyson Daniels, Jalen Johnson,  Zaccharie Risacher), and Tre Johnson looks the part of someone who has the versatility to complement all of them. He’s a ready-made shotmaker with high-end upside as a shooter, and he’s also shown flashes as a playmaker and on-ball defender. A fully developed version of Johnson would be a great fit in Atlanta as a do-it-all wing who can fit into a variety of roles while spacing the floor for Trae.

– AJ Carter

14. Oklahoma City Thunder: Noah Penda, Le Mans

In today’s NBA, you can never have too many dribble/pass/shoot wings, and that holds true even for the stacked OKC Thunder. Noah Penda brings the perfect blend of high feel, strength, and catch-and-shoot ability to thrive as a closeout creator in the Thunder’s offense. Where Penda truly stands out is on the defensive end, where he excels at creating turnovers both on the perimeter and as a weakside rim protector. This combination of skills on both ends of the floor should allow Penda to make an immediate impact for OKC, all while being under 21 for most of his rookie year.

– Roshan Potluri

15. Indiana Pacers: Johni Broome, Auburn

One of college basketball’s main storylines in the early season has been Auburn’s historically dominant start. Currently leading every major computer rating system while playing the most difficult schedule in the country, Johni Broome in many ways has been the catalyst for Auburn’s early-season heroics. Broome has oscillated between being the team’s defensive anchor and offensive fulcrum, similar to the previous season, while increasing his efficiency across the board. Broome’s all-encompassing impact on the best team in college basketball bodes well for his role in the league, where interchangeability is a necessary condition for reserve frontcourt players. And with Myles Turner’s impending free agency, the Pacers’ frontcourt composition is in a precarious state. Johni Broome could easily be integrated into a lineup with or without Turner, and coalesce with the other Pacer’s frontcourt players.

– Ahmed Jama

16. San Antonio Spurs: Kon Knueppel, Duke

The 19th-ranked offense Spurs double down on offensive bets here with Kon Knueppel, who is as pure of a shooter as you’ll find. He’s a lifetime 41% on threes, 84% on free throws, and 49% on non-rim twos across the EYBL and NCAA since 2020, making his shooting projection seamless. Knueppel pairs this shooting with high levels of ballhandling and feel, possessing a tight handle (9.7% turnover rate) with off-putting dribble cadences and being a quick processor (3.4 assist-to-turnover ratio), all of which coincide to make him an 88th percentile pick-and-roll ball handler in the country according to Synergy Sports. Athleticism and physicality are major concerns for Knueppel on both ends, but no team gives him the margins to succeed as the Spurs’ length and athleticism do.

– Maurya Kumpatla

17. Oklahoma City Thunder: Noa Essengue, Ulm

Noa Essengue will be 18.5 on draft night, making him an elite upside pick for the Thunder. With an established roster and a strong development staff, there’s no pressure for him to create in the half-court right away. Essengue has been a dominant force in transition, applying immense pressure on the rim with 34 dunks and a 0.77 free throw rate in the Basketball Bundesliga (25 games). At 6’10” with a reported 9’3.25” reach, Essengue is a pliable forward capable of both protecting the rim and stifling opponents at the point of attack. Despite being a teenager, Essengue shows great feel for the game which is evident in his 2% steal rate and 1.3 assist-to-turnover ratio. While his touch as a finisher still needs work, his 68.6% from the free-throw line and 30% three-point rate provide a strong foundation for improvement. With one of the NBA’s best shooting development staff, Essengue is well-positioned to refine his skills and develop into a special two-way player for the Thunder.

– Roshan Potluri

18. Golden State Warriors: Egor Demin, BYU

A quintessential Warriors player with his intersection of size and feel, if he were drafted this season Demin would be one of only four one-and-done freshmen above 6’7 to post above a 20% assist rate, the others being Anthony Black, RJ Barrett, Scottie Barnes, Cade Cunningham and Ben Simmons. Demin has acquitted himself extremely well exclusively running the point in BYU’s NBA-style offense. However, questions remain about whether he can sustain this production versus better competition, and how well his shooting will hold considering his mediocre priors. While these concerns are valid, what Demin’s demonstrated so far should portend well for a reduced role for a Golden State team in need of a two-way connector.

– Ahmed Jama

19. Houston Rockets: Khaman Maluach, Duke

The Rockets get one of the most impactful freshmen in the country at a relative value. Khaman Maluach has played a critical role in Duke’s nation-leading adjusted defensive efficiency while playing a remarkably mistake-free offensive role. Everything about Khaman’s game oozes physical dominance, starting with anthropometrics: he has 10-inch wide hands and a 9’8 standing reach, both of which would rank amongst the top of the league. Khaman is a force on the glass (15% offensive rebound rate), a wildly efficient scorer (81% true shooting), and he’s showcased an uncanny ability to both draw fouls (0.60 free throw rate) and limit possession obstruction (< 4 fouls/40 + 11% TO). He even demonstrates some semblance of touch, shooting 80% from the line. Khaman and his anti-foul rim protection style should seamlessly slot into Ime Udoka’s stifling defensive scheme. There are certainly pertinent concerns regarding Khaman’s feel, but this is the type of high-upside, immediate-production selection that the surging Rockets should be looking to make.

– Avinash Chauhan

20. Utah Jazz: Boogie Fland, Arkansas

Boogie is one of the best guards in this draft class. The burst off the dribble is truly something to watch while he’s on the floor. This is a guard who can create and get into the paint without a screen and show off his touch with his floater or make the reads necessary to keep advantages going. He’s sporting a 73-27 assist-to-turnover rate so far this season. Boogie is also shooting 36% from three while launching 60 of them. There aren’t many players in this draft who combine the ball handling, creativity, and self-creation upside as Boogie. This is the best available pick.

– Larry Golden

21. Brooklyn Nets: Labaron Philon, Alabama

Philon is the most “gadget-y” player in the class, and that’s why I love him in a backcourt next to earlier pick Jeremiah Fears. His game isn’t perfect – he needs to clean up his catch-and-shoot technique and have more anticipation for passing reads – but is consistently a plus across skills. He has not gotten a chance to show off his pull-up shooting as more of a connector in the Alabama system, but still can juice their offense which is nearly ten points better with him on. His positioning overall is elite, making him a threatening defender and able to clean up easy transition looks. If he can build on his scoring (he remains highly efficient at 59% true shooting), Philon could provide a backcourt panacea to endless problems.

– Matt Powers

22. Orlando Magic: Kam Jones, Marquette

Orlando is ready to contend. Their biggest need is a pull-up three-point sniper who can score and run some offense to pull defenders away from Franz and Paolo. In walks Kam Jones, arguably the best college player in the country. Averaging 20 PPG with a 4.2 A/TO his senior season while hitting 38% on six 3PA over a four-year college career sample size, Kam may provide the instant floor-spacing spark Orlando’s offense so desperately needs.

– Ryan Kaminski

23. Orlando Magic: Donnie Freeman

Donnie Freeman is a strong big wing who brings two-way impact because he can score, rebound, defend, and hit the open three. Freeman shows promising touch indicators like high FT% for positive shooting development. The highest ceiling guards on the board were Ben Saraf, who makes incredible highlight passes, and Nolan Traore, who attacks gaps with quick burst, flashes connector tendencies, hustles defensively, and has flashed the pull-up shot on rare occasions. But, neither Saraf nor Traore have been a consistent 3-point shooter. For a contending team targeting good basketball players this late in the draft who can quickly contribute and space the floor, the strategy taken was finding high-floor reserves who can fill a 6th-9th man slot in the rotation with the potential to fill in as starters when called upon. While both guards have higher potential ceilings, hoping rookies develop a skill they don’t currently show on a roster where the opportunity to do so is limited is a tough situation for them to succeed.

– Ryan Kaminski

24. Brooklyn Nets: Ben Saraf, Ulm

Ben Saraf burst onto the first-round radar with his MVP performance at the 2024 U18 Euro Championship. His most obvious strength is his size/feel: he’s measured at 6’5 without shoes and a 6’7.5 wingspan, with a certified highlight reel of passing flair and abrupt steals to boot. While the shot hasn’t quite been falling this year, Saraf has a 33% assist rate and 2.7% steal rate while leveraging his size en route to a 5.4% offensive rebound and 1.1% block rate. And he’s doing this as the unquestioned engine of a surprisingly great Ratiopharm Ulm team that’s currently 9-2 in the Eurocup. Saraf has drawn comparisons to former Ulm PG and current Long Island Net Killian Hayes, especially as a fellow lefty, but this is aesthetic bias personified: Saraf is far more turnover avoidant while showing an ability to make open catch-and-shoot threes (46% open 3P% vs 27% open 3P% for pre-draft Killian). There are clear athletic and shooting concerns with Saraf, but productive teenagers leading productive teams are a dime a dozen. Saraf could be THE tank commander for the Nets as they Dive (in the standings) for Darryn or Lose for Booz(er).

– Avinash Chauhan

25. Brooklyn Nets: Darrion Williams, Texas Tech

Willams was an easy pick for me here, even despite being older at 22 on draft day. He is extremely productive, #6 in Box Plus-Minus in the NCAA. He can shoot – a career 40% three-point shooter on 6 attempts per 100 possessions and 86% from the line on 167 attempts. But more importantly, he has shown his passing has more upside than initially displayed his prior two seasons, now up to 5.2 assists per game compared to only 2.0 turnovers. Despite not being the fleetest of feet, he contributes everywhere, getting some boards, some steals, some blocks with his high feel for the game. The Brooklyn Nets cannot pass up someone who can grease the offense from the wing (Darrion is 6’6”, I should mention) while proving through his production he can hang in athletically.

– Matt Powers

26. Dallas Mavericks: Nolan Traore, Saint-Quentin

The Mavs need blue-chip young talent. The Luka-to-Lively connection should be a permanent fixture of Mavs basketball for the next decade, but beyond that tandem, there is a real lack of youthful upside on the roster. Nolan Traore has had a rough start to his season in a surprisingly large role for a teenager with Saint Quentin, but the talent is untenable. He is a walking paint touch with NBA-level athleticism at the guard spot. His ability to defend the point of attack and create out of the pick-and-roll pairs well with Luka both on the court and while he sits. The shot will need to come around, but at this point in the draft that is a bet worth taking.

– Tyler Wilson

27. Memphis Grizzlies: Tahaad Pettiford, Auburn

Orlando desperately needs more guard creation to relieve pressure from its offensive stars. Pettiford brings that needed offensive juice. He shoots efficiently from deep range off of the bounce, breaks defenses with his speed, and finds his teammates for open shots. Point guards of his size always face a challenging climb to the NBA, but Pettiford’s advanced offensive toolkit and defensive playmaking on Orlando’s roster of giants bode well for his chances.

– Ben Pfeifer

28. Los Angeles Clippers: Nique Clifford, Colorado State

Nique Clifford feels destined to be a Clipper. He’s an older prospect who should be ready to compete on both ends of the floor from the start of training camp. He has had a larger offensive role this season, but that is not his sell as a prospect. Clifford is a grinder on both ends of the floor, an above-the-rim athlete who knows where to be and when to be there. Statistically, his projection as a shooter is a bit murky (68% from the line and  35% from three for his career), but his comfortability in the midrange and shooting over contests is encouraging. For a hard-nosed, defensive-minded team led by two high-usage stars, Clifford is an easy plug-and-play fit.

– Tyler Wilson

29. Boston Celtics: Hugo Gonzalez, Real Madrid

Gonzalez would add another defensively slanted wing into the rotation, something they’ll never complain about. He’s defended at a positive level for stretches throughout his Euroleague play this season, imposing his will as a point of attack and low-man defender. Boston will have no problems waiting for Gonzalez to tap into a passable level of offensive impact, and Gonzalez fell too far for his talent level.

– Ben Pfeifer

30. Utah Jazz: Rasheer Fleming, Saint Joseph’s

Fleming is a 6’9 forward who is showing signs of being able to stretch the floor from three making 39% on 53 attempts in 12 games. Not only is he able to shoot it, but he also has enough handle to attack closeouts and go finish at the rim with force and even finesse with his athleticism. Fleming is still only 20 years old and provides a lot of intrigue with his versatility on both sides of the ball. He currently leads his team in stocks with 41 total (22 steals, 19 blocks). Picking Fleming at the 30th pick is a win.

– Larry Golden

31. Boston Celtics: Rocco Zikarsky, Brisbane

32. Charlotte Hornets: Ryan Kalkbrenner, Creighton

33. Minnesota Timberwolves: Miles Byrd, San Diego State

34. Detroit Pistons: Will Riley, Illinois

35. Charlotte Hornets: Jacob Cofie, Virginia

36. Toronto Raptors: Chaz Lanier, Tennessee

37. Dallas Mavericks: Anthony Robinson II, Missouri

38. Brooklyn Nets: Danny Wolf, Michigan

39. Washington Wizards: Alex Karaban, UConn

40. Indiana Pacers: Flory Bidunga, Kansas

41. San Antonio Spurs: Yaxel Lendeborg, UAB

42. Chicago Bulls: Tomislav Ivisic, Illinois

43. San Antonio Spurs: Walter Clayton Jr., Florida

44. Oklahoma City Thunder: Xaivian Lee, Princeton

45. Los Angeles Lakers: Igor Milicic Jr., Tennessee

46. Golden State Warriors: Juni Mobley, Ohio State

47. Los Angeles Lakers: Adou Thiero, Arkansas

48. Cleveland Cavaliers: Bogoljub Markovic, KK Mega

49. Atlanta Hawks: Jamir Watkins, Florida State

50. Washington Wizards: Bennett Stirtz, Drake

51. Washington Wizards: Dink Pate, Mexico City

52. Charlotte Hornets: JoJo Tugler, Houston

53. Orlando Magic: Jalil Bethea, Miami

54. Dallas Mavericks: KJ Lewis, Arizona

55. Memphis Grizzlies: Tucker Devries, West Virginia

56. New York Knicks: Drake Powell, UNC

57. Houston Rockets: Max Shulga, VCU

58. Orlando Magic: Otega Oweh, Kentucky

59. Cleveland Cavaliers: Milan Momcilovic, Iowa State

The post 2025 NBA Mock Draft 1.0 appeared first on Swish Theory.

It’s no secret that NBA offenses have been improving year over year. We see teams consistently breaking through offensive rating records and this is in part due to offenses taking more efficient approaches to their shot diet. Teams are limiting the long midrange attempts they take while increasing the volume of closer shots at the rim and higher shot-quality three-point attempts.

The court is extremely spaced out which makes it difficult for defenses to cover ground and stay attached to their offensive counterparts. This enables players to have more space on their drives and get a more open shot at the rim, especially with how much NBA scheme is about engaging the tagger and drawing rim protectors away from the basket. Having multiple players who can create offense off of a closeout gives an offense more opportunities to attack defenses and derive these higher-quality shots within a 24-second shot clock. The culmination of these factors has resulted in 2-point shots achieving the same efficiency as 3-point shots in terms of points per possession.

With so much space to operate in today, primary creators can leverage their scoring tools and feel better than ever, and when advantage creators bring two to the ball, that means there’s a wide-open player somewhere on the court. While the value of high-level on-ball creators is undeniable, basketball is still a team sport at the end of the day. As important as it is to have great stars, supplementing an offense with better off-ball creation is how the best offensive teams continue to improve year after year.

Synergy, who tracks this for the NBA, defines spot-ups as possessions where the possession-ending event is a catch-and-shoot or catch-and-drive play. This could involve situations like catch-and-shoot threes, driving to the rim off a closeout, sidesteps or step-backs, or midrange shots created off the drive. One of the most straightforward ways to supplement NBA offenses is to consistently have five players on the court who can problem-solve against closeouts and leverage their tools in these situations.

Take a look at the roster construction of the NBA’s top offenses: at any given time, these teams consistently have at least four players on the floor who excel at dribbling, passing, and shooting at a high level. Teams like the Knicks, Celtics, and Thunder often have five players who can do this, and this truly maximizes the increased usage of spot-up possessions in the NBA.

Le’s dig into the data.

Going back to the 2017-18 NBA season, the average number of spot-up possessions throughout the league has marginally gone up yearly since then. In 2017-18, teams had 21.633 spot-up possessions per game. Now? That number has risen to 26.613 in 2023-24. That’s almost five (!) more possessions per game in seven years.

It’s not just the volume that’s increasing—over the past seven years, teams have also become more efficient at scoring on spot-up possessions.

Doing some basic regression analysis on the seven-season sample, we can see that there’s a strong positive linear correlation between spot-up volume and offensive rating.

The relationship between spot-up possessions and offensive rating can be described by the equation (line of best fit):

Average Offensive Rating=1.106(Average Spot-up Possession Per Game) + 85.53

This means that for every additional spot-up possession per game, a team’s offensive rating increases by approximately 1.106 points on average. Moreover, the R-squared value of 0.816 indicates that 81.6% of the variation in offensive rating can be attributed to the number of spot-up possessions, highlighting the strong connection between these two variables.

Logically, this aligns with the idea that having more spot-up possessions gives teams more opportunities to attack defenses and generate better offense. Essentially, spot-ups have become the fulcrum for NBA offenses in the war of attrition against NBA defenses. Framing the battle between offense and defense as a war of attrition, wouldn’t having five players who can attack off the catch in diverse ways challenge defensive personnel on a more granular level and create better scoring opportunities?

Let me take a step back and get into my nerd bag to reiterate what I mean. It’s a lot like how Team Avatar dismantled the drill attacking Ba Sing Se in Avatar: The Last Airbender (If you haven’t watched the show, please do yourself a favor and watch it immediately). Instead of relying on brute force, they exploited the machine’s structural weaknesses—Toph weakening the supports with earth bending, Sokka identifying the critical points, and Aang delivering precise strikes to bring it down. This is a lot like advantage creation and extending those advantages through closeout creation, having players who can attack off the catch in different ways allows an offense to pick apart a defense piece by piece, forcing it to collapse under pressure. (Skip to 2:04 in the video if you want a quicker explanation).

The NBA Draft…?

As much as scouting the draft is about analyzing the players, it’s just as essential to grasp the evolving trends of the league they’ll be stepping into.

For the remainder of this piece, I’ll focus on five 2025 NBA Draft prospects I value highly for their production and multi-faceted skillsets. What truly sets them apart is their ability to create offense off the catch. To thrive as a spot-up player in the modern NBA, a player must:

• possess shooting gravity to command defensive attention off the catch.
• have driving and handling tools to react to hard closeouts.
• have the feel to pass and extend the play into a higher-quality shot.

All five players in this piece have the building blocks for creating offense off of closeouts, but each brings a unique approach to the table. This diversity in how they attack off-the-catch adds layers to an offense, enabling it to exploit specific weaknesses in defensive matchups. For instance, some defenders may excel at guarding strength-based matchups but struggle with lateral quickness. A player who can attack a tilted defense with a quick first step allows the offense to capitalize on that vulnerability. In essence, variability in closeout creation amplifies the ability to target nuanced weaknesses of all five defenders on the court, giving the offense a distinct tactical advantage.

The Prospects

Now that we’ve explored the concept, let’s dive into the five potential NBA Draft prospects and examine how they leverage their unique strengths to create offense off the catch.

Burst: Jase Richardson (Michigan State) | 6’3″ Guard

The most obvious way to capitalize on a semi-tilted defense is speed: a player using their first step and acceleration to widen the gap in the offensive advantage. Jase Richardson is the perfect example of a guard who can do this, beating defenses off-the-catch with his speed in a low-usage role for Michigan State this year. Going back to AAU and his senior year of high school, Jase has had a lot of experience being in spot-up situations – his second most used offensive play type in both contexts.

His first step is good, but Richardson excels at accelerating and using sharper driving angles to create separation. His ankles and feet can take sharper angles on drives, reducing how much he curls away from the rim, and enabling tighter, shorter drive paths. Accentuated by the acceleration in his second and third steps, Richardson capitalizes on these traits to explode into his last stride on finishing attempts at the rim or get to the middle of the floor to hurt the defense with his touch.

He’s also adept at recognizing where the help is coming from and making the pass to the open man off of these drives. While defenders do give him attention from the perimeter, Richardson’s volume and efficiency as a 3-PT shooter have not been extremely high in the past. He’s shot 30% from the perimeter on a 30% three-point-rate between 17U AAU and his senior year of high school, however, it looks like Richardson’s 3-point shot is on the uptick with a three-point rate of 34.6% and 50% in a small sample of games (9 games) for Michigan State so far. As this shot improvement sustains, defenses will have to guard him tighter from the perimeter, enabling Richardson to leverage his burst even further on off-the-catch drives.

Strength: Noah Penda (Le Mans Sarthe Basket) | 6’7″ Forward

Another way to create off-the-catch is to use brute force to carve space and extend advantages. When a player has outlier strength, they can often effectively penetrate the shell of set defenses. Some players combine burst with strength and apply large amounts of force toward the rim on off-the-catch drives, making it burdensome for a tilted defense. On the flip side, some players use their strength to take a slower, methodical approach which gives them a larger window to make a play while carving space with their body. A strong processor can often use this larger window to leverage their court mapping as a passer, finding a high-quality half-court shot by extending the advantage. Noah Penda’s quick processing and strength paint a true illustration of how this creation works off the ball.

Penda wins with strength against tilted defenses, getting deep into the paint with his stocky frame and making plays off of two feet that maintain the flow of the offense. His patience shines in these reps where he often takes his time to let the play develop, attacking when the defense over helps and gives him an opening. Penda’s handle needs work but his margins on these drives are high with how much space he eats up on the court using his strength. The byproduct of his strength is that it enables him to attack set defenses off-the-catch well, reducing the threshold of how much shooting gravity he consistently needs to win on these drives. Regardless, in 14 games this year, Penda has shown he can be a good shooter off of two feet – he maintains balance and good elbow alignment in these stances which have shown up in his efficiency (37.8 FG%) and increased comfort to shoot 3-pointers (39% 3-point-rate). The issues with Penda’s shot come when movement is introduced, throwing his alignment and balance off and reducing the number of counters he can use as a shooter, whether that’s with stepbacks from the perimeter or his limited volume of off-the-dribble twos.

Change Of Direction: Xaivian Lee (Princeton) | 6’4″ Guard

Speaking of counters, an additional form of closeout creation is the art of using sleight of direction to problem-solve. The junior guard for the Princeton Tigers, Xaivian Lee is the team’s lead creator and pick-and-roll ballhandler where he slices up defenses with his elite change of direction on multiple planes. With how Princeton’s offense revolves around a philosophy of spacing the floor, constant motion, and having any of the 5 players on the court to exploit a mismatch, it can lead to a primary ball-handler like Lee playing in situations where he’s attacking closeouts consistently. Lee has great downhill pressure with his burst, but his elite trait is his combination of spatial awareness and change of direction. He has a great understanding of open space and where his limbs are relative to his body which enables him to determine easier scoring angles, throwing defenders off balance with how quickly he can change direction.

The initial idea that comes to mind with change of direction is moving the body across the transverse plane (east to west – turning and rotating), however, change of direction is also about being able to shake the defense with movement across the sagittal plane (north-south – acceleration and deceleration). Xaivian Lee is excellent at capitalizing on both of these aspects of change of direction, creating easier shots off-the-catch or collapsing multiple defenders and finding the open man on the court. Lee is also quite effective at creating separation off of step-backs and side steps, which gives him a high degree of optionality with direction. While he’s had a down year in overall efficiency with the increased offensive load in 11 games, Lee has always been a versatile shooter, especially on catch-and-shoot shots, which has meant that defenses have always had to respect his shooting gravity and react with strong closeouts. He has limitations as a finisher with his weight and strength as a 6’4 guard but with over 148 spot-up possessions in the past two years, Lee is still scoring 0.966 points per possession and 38% on his spot-up threes. Xaivian’s weight will be a major point of contention with his NBA upside, but his elite change of direction, processing, and shooting touch gives him a strong floor as an off-the-catch creator, especially next to the plethora of jumbo primary initiators in the NBA.

Functionality + Small Space Coordination: Labaron Philon (Alabama) | 6’4″ Guard

Good closeout creation can also come from players who are functional with multiple traits and extend advantages off of the dominance of their micro-skills. Alabama freshman Labaron Philon is a clear example of a player like this, maintaining possessions off-the-catch with a functional handle and his coordination in tight spaces. Philon has functional strength, burst, and touch but he wins by consistently keeping his dribble alive and navigating through a crowd.

Similar to Princeton’s offense, Alabama plays with a lot of space in the half-court with the intent to move the ball and attack off-the-catch. Alabama’s space gives a player like Philon the lane to get downhill against tilted defenses, but even when the court shrinks on the drive, he can problem-solve in those tight spaces to either find an open player or maintain the dribble long enough to find a shot for himself. The functionality Labaron Philon has in multiple areas allows him to be versatile with how he finishes inside the arc, whether that’s slamming his body into rim protectors to create separation at the rim using his strength or launching his patent floater against defenders that sag deeper into the paint. His ability to keep his handle alive gives him larger windows to process the defense and attack accordingly with his different functional traits.

Most of Philon’s issues come with the potency of his 3-point shot. Between his senior year of HS and 17U AAU, Philon has shot 35.9% on 150+ attempts but that has not translated yet in 10 games with Alabama where he’s shooting 24% on 5.4 3PA/100. Alabama’s offense is a good emulation of good NBA offenses today, and when you combine this sample with his senior year of HS and 17U AAU, he’s generating 0.912 points per possession on 149 total possessions even without an elite 3-point shot to fall back on. There’s a strong proof of concept that Philon can be an effective closeout creator and with the touch indicators in his profile, there’s a high likelihood that he can become a strong shooter off-the-catch.

Size + Fluidity: Cooper Flagg (Duke) | 6’9″ Forward

While there are plenty of other ways to describe creation off-the-catch, the last one I will be talking about in this piece is about being the ultimate tweener. The term tweener often has a negative connotation when it comes to a player, usually describing a player that is a jack of some trades and a master of none, excelling at no true position. Another way I have come around to using this term is to describe players that can be cross-match nightmares for defenses: a player that has the positional size to overpower smaller players and the fluidity to break down larger defenders.

If you’re following the NBA draft, it is unlikely you haven’t heard of the 17-year-old forward playing for Duke this year. Cooper Flagg gets his generational moniker from his premier defense in an abundance of roles and how developed his offense is for a player that young. Relative to age, even with some early efficiency issues, Flagg has excelled as a primary creator for the Blue Devils in 10 games so far this year. He’s still in the early stages of experimenting as an on-ball creator, but off the ball, Flagg has showcased that he is already a functional off-the-catch scorer.

Cooper Flagg can also be used as an example of a strength creator off of closeouts, where he’s bullied much older players with his size and functional strength, but it’s the intersection of size and fluidity that makes him so problematic for defenses to deal with. This intersection is an extension of strength creation where players can get lower than their defender and carve out space using their body as a lever. Where this differs from how a player like Penda creates off of closeouts, mass isn’t the sole factor in generating force against defenders, it’s the lever principle generating more force due to the size of the player and how low they can get on drives. Due to amazing shin angles and how low Flagg can sink his hips on drives, it extends the distance between where the input force is applied (Flagg’s shoulder against the body of his defender) and the fulcrum (Flagg’s hips) which generates even more force without requiring outlier mass on his frame. This allows Flagg to carve space regardless of the size of his defender consistently, enabling him to score inside the arc and spray passes when the defense sends help to guard him.

Flagg’s handle is still a work in progress as he can’t consistently pass off of a live dribble, but he uses jump passes to expand his passing windows and get a better mapping of the court.

Flagg’s efficiency woes at Duke have mostly come from his poor 3-point shooting, 22.2% on 6.9 3PA/100. A crucial part of closeout creation is the shooting gravity a player possesses, and while the efficiency has not been good, the volume he takes forces defenses to pay attention to those shots. Moreover, I believe he is due for some positive regression as the season progresses with how he’s shot in previous settings. 36% from the perimeter between his final year at Monteverde and 16U AAU on over 174 attempts, Flagg has been exceptional on spot-up threes where he’s shot 41.4% on 70 attempts in that same sample. As he grows stronger, the stability shooting off two feet should improve and accommodate for larger distances, enabling him to get stronger closeouts from the perimeter and leverage his traits off-the-catch.

Curtain Call

All five of these players have other skills that give them a strong baseline in the NBA, but their most formidable trait is how they create off of closeouts in different ways. Spot-ups are the fulcrum of NBA offenses because the quality, variability, and volume of this play type can often be the difference in the balance of an offense winning or losing the possession battle. Having a team with five players like this on the court who can attack the defense in varied ways captures the greatest strength of an elite offense: the constant exploitation of mismatches to create advantages on each touch a player gets within a team possession.

Stay tuned for my upcoming piece on the 2025 NBA Draft cycle, a companion article that will explore the other side of the NBA spectrum!

The post Closeout Creation: The Fulcrum Of NBA Offenses appeared first on Swish Theory.

Dereck Lively enrolled at Duke last as the centerpiece to one of the most decorated recruiting classes in recent memory. Despite his five-star pedigree, Lively had an incredibly narrow role offensively while captaining the defense on the other end. What made Lively one of the most impactful freshmen in the country, and what areas could see minor improvement result in major impact?

Offense

Lively’s offensive role was that of a limited big man: screen, rim run and crash the glass. There wasn’t much room to spread his wings, but he thrived in the space he was provided. Lively finished the season with over 50 dunks, a true shooting percentage of 65.7, an offensive rebound percentage of 12.3 and a positive assist-to-turnover ratio. While that doesn’t result in star production, Lively thrived in his role as an offensive stimulant: greasing the wheels and dominating his role. 

As a rim running big, Lively has the foundation of a functional NBA skillset. Standing at over seven feet tall with surprising vertical ferocity, Lively was one of the most effective lob threats in the country. His non-dunk finishing was concerning in terms of efficiency, but that picture is clouded by a lack of volume. It is hard to have a definitive assessment regarding his overall touch considering how small the sample size was this year, even if the results were discouraging. 

As a passer, Lively had encouraging moments passing out of both the short roll and dribble handoff actions. Towering over most opponents, Lively has access to sight lines others do not, and he showed an increased confidence in executing reads as the year went on. While his assist numbers hardly jump off the page, the spacing around him at Duke was exceedingly poor. The process was solid, and a ~10 assist percentage is incredibly encouraging for an 18-year-old big. 

Is there any hope of a shot? Maybe? Shooting around ~60% for a big is essentially the bare minimum for “can he kind of shoot it one day?”. The form isn’t particularly discouraging, but the actual percentages are really poor. It doesn’t sound like much, but being willing to attempt 13 threes this year is, historically, a relatively positive indicator. 

Defense

On the other end of the court, Dereck Lively is a shot-blocking menace. His block rate of 12.3% was incredibly impressive for a freshman, and he got it done in just about every way possible. He was a menace rotating to the rim as a helper throughout the entire season. 

To begin the year, Lively struggled to operate in space on the perimeter and in the pick and roll, but steadily improved as the year went along. By the time the year came to a close, Lively had grown into one of the most effective big man defenders in the draft. 

It is hard to put into words how effective his timing and tools are as a shotblocker. Very few freshman bigs make a genuine difference defensively, but Lively did. There are certainly areas to be cleaned up on the defensive glass and in general technique, but he isn’t missing anything. 

This video from the honorable @_prezidente checks every box from quality of competition to a variety of different shot contests.. You see help rotations at the rim, pick and roll defense, chase down blocks in transition and even a few blocked jumpers. When it comes to defensive upside, the ceiling is the roof. 

Lively is dominant in an almost Duncan-esque manner, blocking shots he has no business contesting while barely leaving the ground. There are moments with aerial displays of physical dominance, but it is the subtle brilliance of timing and hand placement that sets Lively apart from other big man prospects. 

Lively will have more scheme versatility than your typical true center, showing the ability to play at the level with ease with dreams of hard hedges and opportunistic switches. There were moments of foul-happy block hunting, but he showed real patience as the season went along. 

Rarely were his fouls abhorrent, but rather the growing pains of a big man learning how to use his body effectively. Lively rarely shied away from challenges at the rim and has all the tools to win more of those battles than most. Lively will need to add strength and a little foul discipline once he’s in the league, but you will be hard pressed to find many teenage big men that are this ready to defend in the league. Dereck Lively is an outlier where it matters most.

The post Dereck Lively II appeared first on Swish Theory.

The post Ep 15: The Defense of Dereck Lively II appeared first on Swish Theory.

They begin by discussing his well-rounded game, lack of an elite skill offensively, and ease of fit at the next level. Flip’s evaluation is rooted in one question – how important is ceiling when your floor outcomes still impact winning?

The guys will be back later this week with an episode on one of the most divisive prospects in the class, stay tuned.

The post Ep 14: Kyle Filipowski and the Value of Certainty appeared first on Swish Theory.

In this episode, they discuss all things Dariq Whitehead from his #1 RSCI ranking, injury-plagued season, offensive question marks, and his general divisiveness as a prospect.

The next episode will release later this week, focusing on Dariq’s Duke teammate Kyle Filipowski.

The post Ep 13: Dissecting Dariq Whitehead appeared first on Swish Theory.