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.

1. Utah Jazz – Cooper Flagg, Duke

If you can believe it, I came away from my most recent Duke watch even higher on Cooper Flagg. “There is an easy case to be made for Flagg ending up a consistent top 5 player” is what I wrote in my Flagg scouting report from January, and that may have been an undersell. While he is not perfect – namely his rim efficiency drops against good teams – Flagg’s advancement as an on-ball creator and overall scorer throughout the season only increases his primary odds. He quickened his release in a more stable way, figured out how to hunt short midrange looks and pass succinctly out of those drives. Considering his wiring as a problem-solver with a second-to-none motor, layered on top of an excellent existing skillset at age 18, Flagg may have MVP upside if things click.

Matt Powers

2. Washington Wizards – Dylan Harper, Rutgers

Dylan Harper arrived on Rutgers campus this fall with much fanfare, with the expectations that himself and fellow 5-star recruit Ace Bailey would lead Rutgers to their first tournament appearance since 2022. While the team fell short of these lofty expectations, Harper turned in one of the more impressive floor-raising seasons of any freshman in recent memory. In spite of a flawed supporting cast, Harper was able to lead Rutgers to a top-40 offense while shouldering the lion’s share of playmaking and scoring responsibilities. Harper suffered an illness induced mid-season swoon, but still managed to finish 70% at the rim on substantial volume while avoiding turnovers on these drives. Harper’s turnover economy should also ease any concerns Wizard’s fans may have of Harper’s ability to scale next to other ballhandlers they may acquire in the future. While some consternation related to Harper’s shooting potential is valid, his ability to consistently shoot off the catch, dating back to his high-school days, serves as further evidence Harper can quickly acclimate to a more complimentary role offensively.

Ahmed Jama

3. Charlotte Hornets – Collin Murray-Boyles, South Carolina

At 6’8”, Collin-Murray Boyles is a premier defensive prospect who leverages his feel, hand-eye coordination, and strength on both sides of the court. With a 4.7 BLK% and 2.8 STL% for his college career, Murray Boyles’ ground coverage, length, and feel enable him to consistently force possessions to end, something that the Hornets greatly need. It isn’t just the event creation; he’s a fantastic defensive rebounder, where he posted a 21.3 DREB% over his two years at South Carolina.

On offense, Collin-Murray Boyles can act as a face-up scorer, roller, and elite playmaker as a passer, where he often makes layered reads on the short-roll and out of the post. His defensive value gives him a positive intersection of skills that would allow him to boost Charlotte’s transition offense (worst in the league in efficiency and 6th lowest in volume), acting as a passing outlet and downhill scorer off of steals, blocks, and defensive rebounds. With large creators that have shooting gravity like Lamelo Ball and Brandon Miller, Collin Murray Boyles’ shooting issues would be insulated to a degree, and he would get them better shots through effective screen assists and high-leverage passing. Having a player like Murray-Boyles operate in the short-roll and play out of DHOs would take the Hornets’ offense to another tier, especially since he would have gravity as a scorer both with his face-up game and downhill pressure.

Murray-Boyles is the best player available to me due to his tremendous defensive value, collegiate production for an underclassman, and high degree of feel relative to his age, but it’s his synergistic fit with the Hornets that will draw out the best of his strengths that makes me excited to draft him at this slot.

Roshan Potluri

4. New Orleans Pelicans – VJ Edgecombe, Baylor

VJ Edgecombe is an undeniable athlete with a steep development curve. Edgecombe is a blur in the open floor with a smooth jumper off the catch and a tenacious defensive mindset. His ability to create buckets off the bounce was on full display playing for the Bahamas Men’s International Team this past summer. While that creation equity did not translate directly to the college level, his growth as a ball handler and athletic upside gives plenty of reason for hope. He shouldn’t be asked to do too much too soon in New Orleans with the existing talent on the roster, and his defensive impact and open court ferocity should fit right in.

Tyler Wilson

5. Philadelphia Sixers – Noa Essengue, ULM

At pick 5, Noa Essengue would be a tremendous fit with the Philadelphia 76ers while taking the best prospect available. Essengue dominated the German BBL as a teenager for Ratiopharm Ulm, overwhelming teams on both sides of the floor with his size, length, and ground-coverage, enabling him to post a 61.8 TS%, 13.4 TOTAL REB%, 0.98 A/TO, above 2 BLK%, and 2 STL%. Even as the second youngest prospect in the 2025 NBA Draft, he was able to post a 17.9 PER in a competitive professional league. For the same reasons that he was productive in the BBL, he can provide value on his rookie deal on the 76ers while being an appealing upside bet for the team due to his intersection of measurables, coordination, feel, and touch. On offense, Noa Essengue is a legitimate threat in transition and can provide value as a vertical threat and off-the-catch driver. Even with his sinewy frame, he applies immense physicality downhill, which shows up on the stat sheet in his bonkers 72 FTR. Essengue’s 3-point shot is still a work in progress, but he’s always had touch, and there has been real growth over the years in his mechanics and energy transfer.

Essengue is also a very versatile defender, stifling opponents with his lateral agility and length at the POA, nail, and backline. The combination of production for age, defensive versatility, outlier tools (9’3.25 standing reach at 6’ 10), feel, and touch makes him an intriguing upside bet in the top five.

Roshan Potluri

6. Brooklyn Nets – Ace Bailey, Rutgers

In the midst of a team-building crossroads, Brooklyn goes for an upside star swing on forward Ace Bailey of Rutgers. The 6’10 Bailey has solid physical tools that he displays on both ends, but really pops offensively with his dazzling scoring ability, including a tantalizing pull-up shot-making package, particularly in the midrange, where he has the ability to rise and fire over the top of defenders with seeming ease. In isolation, Ace is, pardon the pun, an “ace” in the department, as he is relatively unbothered by defenders once he gets to his preferred spots, and is already very adept at attempting-and converting-shots that would be deemed extremely difficult by most. He is also a player who can get hot in a hurry, and when he is in a rhythm, is a tough cover for many defenders, nearly regardless of size. Defensively, Bailey competes and makes the most of his length to bother opposing players, and his effort shines through on that end pretty consistently. His defensive awareness off the ball could improve, but for the “offensive finisher” archetype, he is much more of a two-way player. Overall, as a prospect Bailey’s ceiling is very high. There is a lot of room for growth with his handle and passing to fully realize his complete creation potential, and his offensive awareness regarding what constitutes a good shot could use some extensive refining, but as it stands right now, Bailey will be able to make an immediate impact on a young Nets team that is trying to find its way.

Corban Ford

7. Toronto Raptors – Khaman Maluach, Duke

Masai tends to prefer length with developable ball skills in his draft prospects, and Maluach leaves nothing to be desired when it comes to measurables. Standing 7’2” with a 7’5” wingspan and 9’8” standing reach, Khaman can touch the rim without jumping. Maluach has Olympic experience with the South Sudan team, and is coming off a sensational freshman season on a dominant Duke team. Khaman brings a stabilizing presence down low with one of the highest floors in the draft as a rim-roller; no prospect was as efficient of a lob threat rim-finisher as Khaman. Maluach flashes shooting touch on tough shots when given opportunity and brings great defensive intensity, footwork, and hands on both side of the floor. This move could help build the front court of the future alongside Scottie Barnes with another defensive anchor and a rim roller option to toss lobs to in P&R.

Ryan Kaminski

8. San Antonio Spurs – Kon Knueppel, Duke

Kon Knueppel’s jumper is about as fundamentally gorgeous as they come. On a loaded Duke roster Kon thrived hunting his shot off ball, hitting over 40% of his threes on over 10 attempts per 100 possessions. Knueppel is not a bouncy athlete, but is tough as nails with a strong lower half that allows for more positional versatility than at first glance. San Antonio desperately needs shooting to surround the Fox/Wemby pick and roll, and Kon is far and away the best possible fit in this class. Playing off of that gravity should allow for Kon to make an immediate impact and allow for a longer time horizon in the development of his off the bounce creation.

Tyler Wilson

9. Houston Rockets – Jeremiah Fears, Oklahoma

There’s a strong chance Houston trades this pick in real life, but for the purposes of this mock draft, they’ll be happy to add a creator like Fears with potential to remedy many of their offensive issues. Fears’s unique blend of burst, handling skill and shooting touch makes him a genuine primary handler bet, something the Rockets desperately need. Houston has the defensive infrastructure to help minimize his weaknesses on that end.

Ben Pfeifer

10. Portland Trailblazers – Derik Queen, Maryland

Queen isn’t a perfectly snug fit in Portland, but the Blazers couldn’t pass on the clear best player available left on the board. Elite movement skills, handling and touch help Queen dominate as an advantage creator with the feel and mobility to project more passing and defensive growth. Adding another shaky outside shooter will present some challenges, but Queen’s star ceiling is worth tinkering around.

Ben Pfeifer

11. Dallas Mavericks – Kasparas Jakucionis, Illinois

After parting with their franchise centerpiece and losing star Kyrie Irving for nearly the entirety of next season, the Dallas Mavericks fill a desperate playmaking need with the selection of Kasparas Jakucionis out of Illinois. The broad-framed, 6’6 guard has great positional size to go along with superb floor-mapping skill, and he makes the most of these tools along with his impeccable footwork to dictate the game at his own pace, stymying defenders while creating opportunities for his teammates. As a scorer, Jakucionis is adept playing out of the pick and roll, getting to the lane and finishing with touch and craft. His frame comes into play here as well, as he is able to seek out contact and still convert, and he generates free throw attempts in bunches. As a shooter, his form is solid and looks sound overall, even if the three point shooting numbers stand to improve overall. Defensively, Jakucionis is proficient, especially with his physical tools, where his quick feet and prodding hands help him hold up on most assignments. He can be prone to blow-bys by quicker players, and the physicality he brings on the offensive end isn’t quite the same on the defensive side, but he is by no means a liability on that end. All in all, Kasparas Jakucionis’ playmaking, shooting upside, and overall potential is a great fit on a Dallas team that needs to balance immediate contributions alongside future promise.

Corban Ford

12. Chicago Bulls – Tre Johnson, Texas

The Chicago Bulls should consider drafting Tre Johnson with the 12th pick in the 2025 NBA Draft due to his elite scoring ability and potential to address their need for a dynamic offensive guard. At 6’6” with a 7’0” wingspan, Johnson, a Texas freshman, led the SEC in scoring with 19.9 points per game, showcasing his three-level scoring prowess, including 39.2% three-point shooting and crafty footwork reminiscent of Devin Booker. His ability to create shots off the dribble, in isolation 81% of his 97-rim attempts were unassisted and he shot 59% on those, and off screens makes him a potential go-to scorer for a Bulls team transitioning to a youth-focused rebuild after trading Zach LaVine and DeMar DeRozan. While his shot selection and defensive consistency need refinement, his size, high basketball IQ, and playmaking flashes (second on Texas in assists) suggest he can develop into a versatile two-way wing. With Nikola Vucevic’s future uncertain and a need for a franchise cornerstone, Johnson’s upside as a high-volume scorer makes him a strong fit at pick 12, especially in a draft with a perceived drop-off after the top four.

Larry Golden

13. Atlanta Hawks – Ryan Kalkbrenner, Creighton

The Atlanta Hawks are in desperate need of an interior presence, not only to shore up their rim-protection, but to provide Trae Young a release valve. The lack of interior size and a viable finisher has restricted Trae’s potency as a scorer and limited Atlanta’s offense. Ryan Kalkbrenner has been one of the most effective and prolific interior scorers in the collegiate ranks over the past few years, finishing just under 70% at the rim on over 1300 career attempts. Kalkbrenner’s offensive value isn’t limited to his presence around the rim, Kalkbrenner’s punishing screens have been the bedrock in many ways for Creighton’s motion-heavy offense. As much of a boon as Kalkbrenner’s offensive capabilities have been, there is perhaps no area where his impact is more acutely felt than the defensive end. Creighton’s personnel outside of Kalkbrenner consists of offensively slanted players, placing immense pressure on Kalkbrenner to not only alter shots around the rim but suppress opponent’s rim attempts entirely. This is an objective Kalkbrenner has carried out year in and year out during his tenure at Creighton. And while Kalkbrenner’s raw block numbers and block rate are particularly eye-popping for a rim-protector, in each of the past 3 seasons Creighton has allowed less shots at the rim on lower efficiency with Kalkbrenner on the court versus off-court. The clear pathways for Kalkbrenner to be a positive player on both ends of the court make him a clear cut top-20 player, with a skillset tailormade to help the Atlanta Hawks immediately.

Ahmed Jama

14. San Antonio Spurs – Jase Richardson, Michigan State

Jase Richardson is a double dip on shotmaking for San Antonio here in the late lottery. A French connection (Penda, Essengue) is intriguing here if available, but with the arrival of Fox, ascendance of Stephon Castle, and the organizational commitment to Jeremy Sochan there is no greater long term need for this team than shooting the basketball. Richardson posted a 55/41/84 shooting split while canning over 40% of his mid range jumpers. He’s a great shooter both on and off the ball, plays tough defense and has intriguing upside as a pick and roll ball handler. Richardson is a skeleton key for the Spurs’ backcourt, fitting seamlessly with just about any lineup construction newly minted head coach Mitch Johnson decides to throw out there.

Tyler Wilson

15. Oklahoma City Thunder – Carter Bryant, Arizona

Carter Bryant displayed an advanced application of tools, volume shooting, and baseline feel as a 19-year-old last season. At 6-foot-8 and 225 lbs with a 7-foot wingspan, he already has an NBA-ready frame and utilized it to produce a 5.8% block rate and 2.8% steal rate, showcasing legitimate point-of-attack utility and secondary rim protection. On the other end, he shot 37% from three on a massive 59 three-point rate, finished 71% of his rim attempts, and dunked 17 times, building out the perfect playfinishing profile. 69.5% on 59 free throws is a slightly worrying shooting indicator, but 88% on 58 free throws over a two-year EYBL sample suggests this is more of a sample size issue. While Bryant’s usage and self-creation rates suffered from scaling down at Arizona, both of those marks were much higher in EYBL, potentially hinting at some latent creation value. On an Oklahoma City Thunder team that emphasizes ball skills, that would be put to the test, but he fits perfectly within their defensive playmaking, rim protection from all positions, and volume shooting.

Maurya Kumpatla

16. Orlando Magic – Danny Wolf, Michigan

Have you seen this guy play basketball? Danny Wolf is a grab-and-go seven-foot offensive hub diming up defenses on fast breaks and pick and rolls. Wolf flashes exciting handles, natural point center vision, and incredible feel for the game, hitting highlight pull-up threes and tough finishing touch shots at the rim. Danny makes good reads as a primary decision maker reacting to defenses, averaging 1.01 PPP on “P&R including passes” that ranks in the 84th percentile of all college players.

Ryan Kaminski

17. Minnesota Timberwolves – Labaron Philon, Alabama

Philon was an easy pick for me here. I have him ranked a fair bit higher. I believe he has some untapped potential on offense, but generally he brings the type of quick decisionmaking that the Wolves need structurally to make their front-court work. He’s a nice connective piece with upside which makes him an easy pick here.

Joe Hulbert

18. Washington Wizards – Adou Thiero, Arkansas

Adou Thiero is a high volume, punishing driver with ridiculous transition scoring dominance, paired with long arms and elite run/jump athleticism. By all accounts, he is the most functional athlete in this draft class. Despite questionable shooting upside, Adou’s reaction time on defense is notable, and he should emerge as one of the league’s best defenders somewhat quickly. His strong applied physicality, defensive event maxxing, and reasonable 12% assist rate/1 A:TO indicate some semblance of latent feel, which is uncommon for wings of Adou’s athletic caliber. Washington zags from its contemporaneous strategy of targeting high-risk teenagers and takes a young junior that will set the tone for the Wizards’ revamped defense.

Avinash Chauhan

19. Brooklyn Nets – Asa Newell, Georgia

For a team currently bereft of high-end talent or foundational prospects, the Brooklyn Nets should prioritize acquiring young, malleable pieces who can accentuate the skillset of whatever star they eventually bring into the fold. Asa Newell brings a swiss army knife skillset to whatever frontcourt he joins. Newell made major strides this past season as a shooter, elevating his free-throw percentage by over 20 percentage points, and showing softer touch around the basket than he had at any point of his high-school tenure with a vaunted Montverde Academy. Newell finished 13th in the country in Offensive Box Plus-Minus, and was second amongst freshmen. Despite his subpar 3-point efficiency and playmaking numbers, Newell’s effectiveness as an interior scorer and offensive rebounder should ease his transition to the NBA and make him one of the more reliable bets in this range of the draft

Ahmed Jama

20. Miami Heat – Kam Jones, Marquette

This pick mostly leans into the type of thing Miami would do, which I don’t want to be seen entirely as a negative. Kam Jones drastically improved his playmaking this year, it was probably the biggest skill increase in the entire class. This increases his upside. I have concerns about the free throw rate, but Jones is the type of guard the Heat have targeted for the last decade, a slasher who knows how to play the game in the half-court.

Joe Hulbert

21. Utah Jazz – Noah Penda, Le Mans

Over the last two seasons, Noah Penda has hovered around 8% OREB, 16% assist, 4% block, and 3% steal, with 1.6 A:TO and 0.4 FTR. The only high major players to even hit career 7o/15a/3b/2.5s/1.5 a:to are Otto Porter Jr. and Draymond Green. Enough said. Penda is a large bodied driver with legit handling ability, and he’s made real strides as a shooter. He projects as a high feel, two-way connector with as good of a shot as any to land on a few All-Defense teams. Despite the usage of connector as a sort of euphemism, this sort of oreb/assist/stock wing with legit high end feel doesn’t come along every draft. This is exactly the sort of low friction, high EV mold that the Jazz should be looking to target in the middle of the first round.

Avinash Chauhan

22. Atlanta Hawks – Thomas Sorber, Georgetown

The Atlanta Hawks get a lottery-caliber big/forward at pick 22 with Thomas Sorber. While Thomas Sorber played more as a center for Georgetown his freshman season, he’s got the processing, touch, coordination, and mobility to scale down as a forward. He has his limitations as a ground-bound player, impacting his rim finishing and causing him to become more creative in finding finishing angles. However, his fundamentals and his ability to carve space with his body are quite advanced for a freshman, which enabled him to finish 65% of his non-dunk rim attempts despite the vertical challenges for his size. He does this by using his body to create highway screens or to seal and get into post position (70% PPP percentile in post-ups). Although he shot a paltry 16.2% on threes, I have confidence he can become a catch-and-shoot threat on his rookie scale deal due to his comfort with jumpers inside the arc, 72.4% from the FT line, and his lack of hesitancy to take open threes. Sorber is also a fantastic defender who can protect the rim to a high degree (opposing team’s rim FG% falls by 14% with Sorber on the floor and 7.6 BLK%) while also being able to switch in space (2.7 STL%).

For these reasons, Sorber is optimized more as a forward. Playing as a forward and his fit with the Hawks as a short-roll passer, positive rebounder, defender, and play finisher gives me optimism that Sorber would be a tremendous match for the Hawks.

Roshan Potluri

23. Indiana Pacers – Nique Clifford, Colorado State

The Pacers can always use more quality wing play and Clifford brings that. He’s improved his offensive skillset over the years, diversifying his attack and adding new skills to his box of tools. He’ll add much needed size and defensive prowess to Indiana’s perimeter defense as well.

Ben Pfeifer

24. Oklahoma City Thunder – Miles Byrd, San Diego State

The Thunder net their second wing of the draft in Miles Byrd, who stands at 6-foot-6 with a 7-foot wingspan. Byrd was one of the best wing defenders in college basketball last season, applying his length to produce a 4.9% block rate and 4.3% steal rate while grading out as the best defender on a top-20 defense. Alongside his high steal rate, his high feel is evidenced by an 18.5% assist rate and 1.7 assist-to-turnover ratio, rounding him out as a quintessential “Presti-player”. While his shot hasn’t come around yet (30% 3PT), high volume (12 attempts per 100 possessions and 57 three-point rate), great touch (83% FT), and impressive midrange shotmaking (38% on non-rim 2s) at a true sophomore age promise three-point shooting down the line. The main issue lies in his closeout attacking, where his handle easily clears the threshold but terrible finishing (55%) crushes any potential there and limits his overall offensive ceiling.

Maurya Kumpatla

25. Orlando Magic – Tahaad Pettiford, Auburn

Tahaad Pettiford brings downhill explosiveness, quick first step burst, soft finishing touch, pull-up 3pt shooting range, and two-way feel to a team that needs it. A guard that can penetrate the paint, attack the rim, kick out to shooters, score and shoot the rock who can hold his own defensively would see a warm welcome in Orlando. He’ll have opportunity to develop as Orlando continues building a perennial playoff contender, where maybe the Magic won’t need to make a splashy trade if they can nail the right complementary guard to their core in the draft.

Ryan Kaminski

26. Brooklyn Nets – Ben Saraf, ULM

Saraf is a downhill menace at 6’5” who can apply both rim pressure (6.3 rim attempts per 36 minutes) and midrange pressure (3.8 pull-up twos per 36 minutes) while being one of the best distributors in class. Saraf looks like an ideal back up point guard in waiting, with outside shooting concerns holding back his starter likelihood. But productivity across the court – his 4% offensive rebound rate, 2.7% steal rate and 1.3% block rate are all strong for a guard – signal he knows how to play. A proven contributor at only recently turned 19 for the second-place team in the highly competitive German league.

Matt Powers

27. Brooklyn Nets – Bogoljub Markovic, KK Mega

Another up-and-coming bet from the European leagues, Markovic can stretch the floor to complement Saraf’s probing. At 6’11” with a pristine shooting form, Markovic cashed 40% of his catch and shoot three point attempts. That’s bankable at the next level, especially for a Brooklyn Nets team that was in the 97th percentile for catch and shoot frequency. Markovic has questionable ball skills, a good passer but poor decisionmaker at this current stage. But it is encouraging how open he is to trying things: while the creation outcome is unlikely, we cannot rule it out. His primary defensive contribution will be rebounding, at a 22% rate this season, and general effort, hampered by a mere +1 wingspan. The Nets have time to let young players experiment, and Markovic has as interesting of a foundation as anyone left on the board.

Matt Powers

28. Boston Celtics – Nate Bittle, Oregon

Nate Bittle is 7 feet tall with a reported 7’5 WS, he can shoot threes, and he was named to the Big Ten’s All-Defense team. 7 footers who make assists more than turnovers with non-terrible steal rates are rare enough, but I’ll save you the querying: there has never been a single 7-foot prospect who rebounds, blocks, avoids turnovers, and shoots the way Bittle does. The league is built on outliers!

Sure, this phrase is often weaponized as copium for some iteration of a highly unaesthetic, high-friction archetype that hemorrhages points through either 3 or D. But in this case, a 7 footer with these extreme strengths projects to be an incredibly low-friction bet that should be able to contribute regardless of context. It seriously doesn’t take much imagination to project Bittle’s offensive viability, especially on a team like the Celtics who have personnel (two of the league’s best 7 foot+ shooters in Luke Kornet and Kristaps Porzingis) and schematic precedent to maximize Bittle’s goodness.

Avinash Chauhan

29. Phoenix Suns – Darrion Williams, Texas Tech

Phoenix desperately needs good basketball players in any form and Darrion Williams fits that description. Williams presents one of the better dribble-pass-shoot bets on the wing in this class, bringing the on-and-off-ball versatility Phoenix would covet. He’s a sturdy defender as well who would likely be one of the Suns’ better players as a rookie.

Ben Pfeifer

30. Los Angeles Clippers – Alex Condon, Florida

The Los Angeles Clippers should consider drafting Alex Condon in the 2025 NBA Draft due to his versatile skillset and fit with their roster needs. At 6’11”, Condon offers the flexibility to play both power forward and center, addressing the team’s lack of frontcourt depth beyond Ivica Zubac. His modern big-man skills— including low-post scoring, developing three-point shooting, and exceptional playmaking with a 2.2 assist-to-turnover ratio—complement the Clippers’ need for a dynamic, facilitating big who can operate in dribble handoffs and keep the offense flowing alongside stars like James Harden and Norman Powell. Defensively, his lateral quickness and rim protection potential make him a solid fit for switching schemes, while his high basketball IQ and work ethic suggest he can develop into a reliable rotation player. With the Clippers aiming to bolster their frontcourt for a championship push, Condon’s two-way upside makes him a compelling mid-to-late first-round target.

Larry Golden

31. Minnesota Timberwolves – Sion James, Duke

Joe Hulbert

32. Boston Celtics – Liam McNeeley, Connecticut

Larry Golden

33. Charlotte Hornets – Javon Small, West Virginia

Ahmed Jama

34. Charlotte Hornets – Walter Clayton Jr., Florida

Ahmed Jama

35. Philadelphia Sixers – Hugo Gonzalez, Real Madrid

Tyler Wilson

36. Brooklyn Nets – Johni Broome, Auburn

Matt Powers

37. Detroit Pistons – Isaiah Evans, Duke

Roshan Potluri

38. San Antonio Spurs – Yaxel Lendeborg, UAB

Maurya Kumpatla

39. Toronto Raptors – Nolan Traore, Saint-Quentin

Ryan Kaminski

40. Washington Wizards – Rasheer Fleming, Saint Joseph’s

Joe Hulbert

41. Golden State Warriors – Rocco Zikarsky, Brisbane

Tyler Wilson

42. Sacramento Kings – Boogie Fland, Arkansas

Larry Golden

43. Utah Jazz – Drake Powell, North Carolina

Corban Ford

44. Oklahoma City Thunder – Max Shulga, VCU

Roshan Potluri

45. Chicago Bulls – Will Riley, Illinois

Avinash Chauhan

46. Orlando Magic – Vladislav Goldin, Michigan

Ryan Kaminski

47. Milwaukee Bucks – Koby Brea, Kentucky

Larry Golden

48. Memphis Grizzlies – Egor Demin, BYU

Matt Powers

49. Cleveland Cavaliers – Cedric Coward, Washington State

Maurya Kumpatla

50. New York Knicks – Mark Sears, Alabama

Tyler Wilson

51. Los Angeles Clippers – Tyrese Proctor, Duke

Corban Ford

52. Phoenix Suns – Eric Dixon, Villanova

Avinash Chauhan

53. Utah Jazz – Alex Toohey, Sydney

Larry Golden

54. Indiana Pacers – Jamir Watkins, Florida State

Ben Pfeifer

55. Los Angeles Lakers – Joan Beringer, Olimpija

Roshan Potluri

56. Memphis Grizzlies – Karter Knox, Arkansas

Matt Powers

57. Orlando Magic – Otega Oweh, Kentucky

Ryan Kaminski

58. Cleveland Cavaliers – Hunter Sallis, Wake Forest

Corban Ford

59. Houston Rockets – AK Okereke, Cornell

Maurya Kumpatla

The post 2025 NBA Mock Draft 3.0 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.