Milan Momcilovic’s absence from all mainstream mock drafts and boards perplexes me. After a freshman year where the 6’8 forward proved himself an elite shotmaker, he’s positioned well to make a run at the 2025 draft for an elite Iowa State team.

The shotmaking numbers are gaudy — 36.1% from three on 8.8 attempts per 100, a 49.9 three-point attempt rate, 80.9% on free-throws and 45.6% (68-149) on long two-pointers. The only other 6’8+ freshman to match Momcilovic’s shooting production was Lauri Markkanen.

The eye test reflects these numbers, as Momcilovic sprints off of movement from NBA range, pulls up off of the dribble and feathers in Dirk-inspired fadeaways in the intermediate. Very few shooters his height and age compare to Momcilovic. That alone is worth something in an NBA where teams regard shooting so highly.

Momcilovic’s athletic translation will be the primary question for his NBA outlook. He’s fairly slow on both ends without much explosion or bend, evidenced by his poor athletic indicators (1.0% steal rate, 20.1 free-throw rate, zero dunks). We rarely see players with physical indicators this poor make the NBA.

Despite those major problems, Momcilovic defends at a positive level in college. His footspeed might limit his effectiveness on the perimeter at the next level, but he’s a stellar team defender who always positions himself to close gaps and help at the basket. That same feel manifests on offense, as Momcilovic is an effective secondary playmaker off of his shooting gravity.

We shouldn’t let imperfect statistical history blind us to outlier talent, and that’s what Milan Monmcilovic’s shotmaking is. I’ve never scouted a freshman prospect with these kind of extreme, outlier strengths and weaknesses. I’m willing to bet on Momcilovic’s unique traits and hope for physical development as his body matures, but he’ll be a fascinating case to track throughout the season.

Matt Powers – Xaivian Lee, Princeton

Xaivian Lee needs to improve to become an NBA player, and perhaps significantly so. This is not ideal for a rising junior in a minor conference, but I believe there are reasons for trusting Lee to do just that.

First, Lee is young for his grade, as only 20 years old. This is important as he is still on the steep side of the aging curve, if not as steep as ages 18 to 19 or 19 to 20. This is also important because Lee’s biggest flaw, without a doubt, is being only 165 pounds at most recent measurement.

Adding that weight will elevate the stellar craft and technique we’ve already seen Lee display on a regular basis. It’s good he’s in the Ivy league where he has room to fully experiment despite the lack of weight, as he’s able to create large margins in which to operate with his elite shiftiness.

Lee had more drives than any of the 2023 drafted NCAA guards. While this is surely aided tremendously by the poor competition, I can defend the stat still in a few ways. 1.) The degree of outperformance, 67% higher than his peers’ averages, 2.) His performance kept up against higher comp. In fact, he even played better inside the arc (50% -> 55% from two) and nearly led the conference in RAPM versus top 100 competition. 3.) He tested very well at the G League Elite Camp, taller than expected (6’2.75” without shoes, acceptable for a point guard), among the best at agility testing and showing off a surprising 36.5” max vertical.

Now, let’s get to the actual basketball. Lee is a dribble-pass-shoot guard who also blocked more shots (14, a lot for 6’2.75”) than all of Isaiah Collier, Jared McCain, Rob Dillingham and KJ Simpson combined. He plays more physically than your everyday slight guard, also excelling on the defensive glass where he was second on the team in rebounds. He seems closer to a very good shooter than an elite one, with 34% from three, 80% from the line, 34% from midrange and 62% at the rim splits. But every one of those is improved from the year before, and, again, there is reason to believe he will grow beyond. The rim finishing in particular is very promising, in the 82nd percentile for layup efficiency on 11 layup attempts per 100 possessions.

Additionally, Lee’s technique is very strong. He is a weapon both on and off ball due to masterclasses (for age) of timing, footwork, deception, hand movements. His top play types showcase that, being above average efficiency in the following actions: spot up (119 possessions), PNR handler (88), handoffs (66), isolation (62), transition (55), cut (30). That’s a healthy diet you can plug and play into any offensive style. This play style flexibility is only enhanced by his sense of experimentation.

Technique, combined with age, is latent value. It is the key building block to development (link Cason Wallace piece) that Lee can rely upon time and again. Don’t be surprised if he looks like a first round pick come December.

Beyond the RK – Jeremy Roach, Baylor

Transferring from Duke with an extra year of eligibility granted by the NCAA to players who competed during the COVID-19 pandemic season, new Baylor guard Jeremy Roach knows how to handle the pressure when the lights shine brightest. With the Blue Devils, Roach started 83% of his 130 games over four seasons, advancing to a Final Four, an Elite Eight, and the 2nd round in 3 March Madness appearances, bringing the ying in experience to the Baylor backcourt to the yang of the sensational freshman walking onto campus for the first time in VJ Edgecome. With VJ expected to fly around the court as a north-south downhill force of nature out of the gates, what can Baylor fans expect from the other newcomer guard joining the squad this season?

Jeremy Roach, 6’1”, fits the strong mold of Baylor Guard Past with good two-way instincts to make winning plays on defense while staying on attack mode on offense with an efficient all-around game and good feel for running pick-and-roll and ISO sets to create open looks for himself and teammates. Jeremy uses tight ball control handles and sound quick burst body control to beat his initial defender, rise and fire for a jumper, or drive into the paint for a finish at the rim or kickout to the 3pt line. Jeremy’s lethal floater comes in handy as a deadly weapon to keep drop defenses honest when driving at the rim, using mean stop-start hesitation dribble moves, sound hop step footwork, and clean bump-and-finishing packages in the paint to draw AND1 fouls. When Roach catches a rhythm pulling up for tough elbow jumpers and 3pt shots off the dribble, he becomes hard to contain for any defense he faces.

Roach shows effort on the defensive end taking charges, reading passing lanes to jump gaps and use quick hands for deflections, and not giving up on plays by contesting shots from behind even after being beat on the perimeter. Forcing turnovers and flipping fast breaks on their head creates quick and easy 4pt swings for his team. Jeremy will lift his team for entire stretches as everyone feels his presence in every possession on both sides of the floor. In a close win over Xavier on Nov 25, 2022, Jeremy Roach took over in the clutch for Duke as the game slowed down; quieting the crowd at every turn; dominating as on-ball scoring creator; initiating P&R variations with two screeners in Horns and Double-Drag; scoring at all three levels from all over the floor; drilling tough shot after tough shot; showing supreme decision-making feel.

Roach has improved his efficiency across the board in his time in college, nearly cutting his turnover percentage in half over a four year span, with impressive development since his sophomore season, rising from a 32% 3pt shooter in Year 2 to a 43% 3pt shooter on the same number of attempts in Year 4. His overall impact has risen from 0-1 BPM in his first two years to 3.1 BPM as a junior and 7.2 BPM as a senior, with a huge jump on the offensive side to 4.5 OBPM, most likely due to increasing overall efficiency, reducing turnovers, and getting to the line more often.

In his 2023-24 season at Duke, Roach took 32% of his shots at the rim, converting 58% of his 113 FGA in that range. Able to get his shot off from anywhere on the floor, Jeremy spreads his shot attempts out evenly with 33% being 2pt jumpers (116 FGA) and 36% coming from beyond the arc. (126 3PA) Shooting 84% FT% at the line, 43% 3P% from deep, and 59% TS% as a scorer, Roach brings efficient scoring versatility.

Between his smooth floater, efficient shooting at the line and from beyond the arc, defensive instincts, offensive feel, and overall efficient scoring versatility, Jeremy Roach shows many promising touch indicators for future scoring and shooting development while flashing potential two-way impact that could translate to his upcoming final season in college and help him pave a path to the next level, the NBA.

Roshan Potluri – Collin Murray-Boyles, South Carolina

I can understand, you’re probably wondering, “I’ve seen him on a couple of mainstream boards where he’s in the late lottery range. Why is Collin Murray-Boyles in a roundtable on the most underrated returners for the 2025 draft class?” Even with the pre-season hype around the sophomore, I believe he is underrated because he should firmly be in the discussion in the top 5 of the 2025 NBA Draft. Let’s take a look at why:

Murray-Boyles had an extremely productive season in his first year with the South Carolina Gamecocks, especially for someone who will be 20.03 on draft day: mere months older than incoming freshmen V.J. Edgecombe and Kon Knueppel. Statistically, the production was eye-popping. He was only involved in 45.7% of his team’s possessions when he was on the floor, yet he posted a BPM of +9.5 and a RAPM of +6.1 which are high for a freshman. Standing at 6’7″, he is undersized as a center. Despite this, he produced a 61.6 TS%, 12.0 OREB%, 17.5 DREB%, 17.1 AST%, and over 20 dunks for the season. Murray-Boyles may be undersized, but he functionally produced on the court to a degree that compares to other high-profile 7-foot freshmen like Joel Embiid, Deandre Ayton, Evan Mobley, and Karl Anthony Towns.

Another example of his statistical excellence: the only freshmen since 2008 to ever record above a 5 BPM, 60 TS%, 15 DREB%, 10 AST%, 2 STL%, and 20 dunks are Joel Embiid, Zion Williamson, and Collin Murray-Boyles.

While the production speaks for itself, what does Collin Murray-Boyles truly excel at and why is that worth a potential top 5 selection? The answer lies in his dominant processing on both sides of the ball.

With his feel, high-level strength, balance, and hand-eye coordination, Murray-Boyles brings tenacious defense at the rim and guarding out in space. He’s able to take away a ballhandler’s breathing space with his combination of stifling length, strength, and ground coverage. Murray-Boyles excels as a rim protector, leveraging his massive standing reach and outstanding hand-eye coordination to effortlessly erase shots at the rim. Whether it’s as the primary anchor or rotating over from the weak side, his presence as the rim is undeniable.

The quick decision-making is apparent on the offensive side of the ball as well. He’s able to spray passes to find advantage situations whether it is out of post-ups or DHOs. Oftentimes, he’s able to open up new scoring opportunities just due to the incredible speed and placement that he delivers these passes with. Murray-Boyles does have his flaws with his shot and his size as a big but he has the pathways to become more of a ballhandler and scale as a forward offensively. His potential as a ballhandler is evident in the high school film, although he’s more reliant on getting to his left as a driver. He struggles with ball control and pick-up points when using his right, but his exceptional strength allows him to carve space on drives, compensating when his handle falls short.

The major question with Murray-Boyles’ NBA projection is his shot. I understand the hesitancy, as he’s only shot five 3’s and 67.4% from the charity stripe in his freshman year. While these numbers are poor, from a projection standpoint Murray-Boyles has improved on his touch numbers year over year and has had more shooting volume in his high school career. For context, he shot 51% from the line at Adidas 3SSB in 2022, 63.2% at Wasatch Academy his senior year, and now in college, that number has risen to 67.4%. He shows great touch on non-rim 2 attempts as well, shooting 41.3% with the Gamecocks. The high school and AAU sample only supplements this idea, shooting 53.5% on 28 runners and hooks the year before college. On tape, there’s good energy transfer and fluidity in the mechanics of his face-up jumpers which is a wide majority of his shooting sample in high school. For a player that’s considered a non-shooting big, Murray-Boyles has taken a moderate number of midrange jumpers between his senior year of high school and final year of AAU shooting 50% inside the arc on 22 attempts.

The complete lack of these jumpers within and beyond the arc at South Carolina can be attributed to his role as a screen and roll big. Murray-Boyles needs to work on improving his volume and touch further, but the growth over the past couple of years in tandem with his impressive hand-eye coordination gives me confidence that he can get to a respectable level by the end of his rookie scale deal in the NBA. 

Overall, Murray-Boyles can be an upper-echelon defender in the NBA with his physical traits and feel, showing signs even as an 18-year-old where he would orchestrate South Carolina’s entire defense from the backline. With his sophomore year at South Carolina, his draft stock will be determined by how his budding offensive skills improve, but with what he’s done so far and his feel for the game, I have no reason to believe he can’t reach those heights in the 2025 NBA Draft.

Larry Golden – Kam Jones, Marquette

In the NBA, the game forever evolves due to teams changing playstyles and other teams trying to copy what the successful teams are doing. In order for teams to meet their most potential they must find players to perform well in different roles pertaining to their team. The key is finding players in the draft that can come in and fit right into certain roles and maybe their skill level allows for a multitude of roles. Kam jones is a player in this upcoming draft that I believe can come into the NBA and make things happen because of his utility both on the ball and off.

Last season Kam Jones shot 39.9% from beyond the arc on 239 attempts and 109 of those were off the catch making those at 39.4% clip. His shooting is what will make his life easier in the league while drawing closeouts and getting two-feet in the painted area. When watching Jones play he has a good feel for making the next right connective passing read. When the defense failed to make a rotation or if the rotator was a bit late, Jones made them pay finishing at the rim at a 67% clip. I was a little underwhelmed with his percentage from the mid range area(, but in the nba threes and layups are the goal and he made both of those at a great rate.

Secondary ballhander is the role I really see for Jones at the NBA level who can take on some pick and roll reps on the second side of the floor. Jones was used in pick and roll 43% of his usage and ranked in the 85th percentile. His combination of handle and size for the position allows for him to see the floor a bit better and the handle is tight enough to squeeze through congested spots on the floor.

AJ Carter – Clifford Omoruyi, Alabama

Clifford Omoruyi has been well established as one of the top defensive players in college basketball, anchoring a Rutgers defense that has been top 25 in the country each of the past two years before transferring to Alabama this offseason for his 5th year of college. He’s a classic backline rim protector with good length (6’9 barefoot, 7’6 wingspan), athleticism, and a lean but well built frame that can hold up against physicality. 

Omoruyi uses these physical tools to dominate around the rim defensively, finishing 3rd in the country in block percentage at 12.7% last season (via KenPom). He can occasionally get himself in foul trouble but is for the most part fundamentally sound defensively, prioritizing being in the right position over chasing blocks. Omoruyi is also a very capable P&R defender, having both backline rim protection ability with enough agility to cover ground when asked to play more aggressively. He isn’t what you would classify as a “switch big” but generally holds up well enough when defending in space to not get exploited and has shown flashes defending on an island against smaller guards. Omoruyi is also capable of finishing off possessions as a defensive rebounder, posting a strong DRB% of 23.7% for his college career. 

As good as he is defensively, Cliff’s lack of versatility on the offensive end is what has prevented him from getting serious hype as a draft prospect thus far. He can score around the rim at an adequate level, but doesn’t offer much outside of that. He isn’t a threat to score outside the paint and lacks touch on floaters or push shots. Omoruyi also has a paltry 0.4 AST/TO ratio for his career, and hasn’t really shown any progress in that department across his 4 years in college. It’s worth noting that Rutgers has been mostly abysmal offensively for Omoruyi’s career there, and play finishing centers like him are particularly context dependent, often needing to play off of strong creators to be effective – something Rutgers has sorely lacked. 

There’s a little room for hope that Cliff can show more progress playing in what should easily be the best offensive context of his career at Alabama this season, but for the most part we already know what he is – and there’s nothing wrong with that. The offensive limitations put a cap on the ceiling of what type of NBA prospect he can be, but he’s such a good defensive anchor that the bar he has to reach on the other end is pretty low. With just a little bit of improvement to his skillset you can see the pathway to him being a useful NBA backup center, making Cliff Omoruyi someone worth monitoring as a prospect this season. 

Tyler Wilson – KJ Lewis, Arizona

KJ Lewis is a slashing guard built for playoff basketball. In an NBA that seems to grow taller and shoot better with every summer, the words “slashing guard” and “playoff basketball” don’t feel like they belong in the same sentence. Slashing guard? You couldn’t find a wing who can shoot? Range, in both wingspan and scoring threat, has become the conventional draft ethos of the modern day. With that said, might I interest you in a Strong Safety instead?

The sell with KJ begins at his defensive impact. He is listed at 6’4 210 and plays like a moving fire hydrant. There is a Naismithian quality to his game that is undeniable, an intersection of strength and agility that resembles an NFL defensive back more than a two guard. He is able to stand up forwards in the post while smothering smaller guards on the perimeter. The ability to remain strong while sliding around the court is a skill in itself. His feel as a help defender and comfortability in switches was great. Outside of occasional bouts with over-physicality, it was hard to come away with anything substantively negative to say on the defensive side of the ball. KJ was an incredibly effective defensive player as a freshman, in a high major conference, at 19 years old.

In recent years, the going has gotten tough in the National Basketball Association for defense-first guards. The threshold of NBA quality offense has grown so incredibly high that it has become nearly impossible to survive if you are not a credible threat to score the basketball. Lewis’ freshman year usage rate of 16.4 is incredibly low for a potential NBA prospect, particularly a guard. The fact he was a relative non-threat from beyond the arc (34% on 3.4 attempts per 100) does not help matters. The path towards NBA minutes as a low usage non-shooting shooting guard is incredibly thin.

While Lewis did not threaten defenses as a shooter last year at Arizona, there is genuine reason for optimism. He shot 79% from the line in college and despite uninspiring numbers around the rim and in the midrange, his tape going back to Duncanville and the 3SSB circuit shows real touch around the rim with flashes of a functional jumper off the dribble. Shot development is an imperfect and unpredictable science, but the foundation is there for steady growth over time.

As a slasher, Lewis’ athleticism shines yet again with the ability to blow by defenders, take bumps and finish through contact. With an unrefined handle, he was best attacking in a straight line or out of an advantage as a freshman, but his coordination and athleticism allow for a long developmental runway as a creator. KJ was a wrecking ball downhill in high school, and on an Arizona roster that lost nearly all of their starters (sans the immortal Caleb Love) there should be more room for him to explore the studio space as a driver. 

What makes KJ Lewis such an intriguing prospect is his combination of athleticism and feel. That, my friends, buried at the very end of my monologue, is the key to Lewis’ pitch as a prospect. He anticipates actions on defense, acts with decisiveness, takes care of the ball, and reads the floor well as a passer, all while being the best athlete on the court. He is versatile not only in his physical capabilities, but his ability to make quick decisions while playing a physically versatile role. As a freshman, we saw that manifest primarily on the defensive end of the floor, but it is exactly what makes the gamble on his offensive upside so appealing. 

Ahmed Jama – Nique Clifford, Colorado State

Despite a late cycle surge onto draft boards this past cycle, 6’6 Colorado State wing Nique Clifford surprised many by returning to school for his 5th and final season of college basketball. Riding the wave of an impressive tournament showing, Clifford was given as good a chance as any veteran college player to work his way into serious draft consideration in a draft class mired in uncertainty. In an attempt to reverse engineer Clifford’s decision to return in lieu of remaining in the draft, I referenced Barttorvik.com to find statistical comparisons to Clifford’s previous season. In Bart Torvik’s 17 season database, Clifford is one of three players to fulfill the statistical query of Defensive Rebounding% ≥ 20; Assist/Turnover Ratio ≥ 1.5; Block % ≥ 2; Steal % ≥ 2; 3PA/100 Possessions ≥ 5; Dunks made ≥ 20. The other two players being TCU’s (now Oklahoma City Thunder) Kenrich Williams and former New Mexico State Aggie Johnny McCants. Unsurprisingly all three players performed nebulous roles, as undersized bigs. The statistical company Clifford keeps is pertinent to his decision to return, because in my opinion, Clifford and his camp recognized unorthodoxy, in NBA decision maker’s eyes, is synonymous with risk. Whether or not this calculation was correct, returning to college has positioned Clifford as one of the best prospects in the country this season. 

Clifford’s unique brand of production is, in my opinion, a byproduct of his high school career, where he played as an undersized big. Despite Clifford measuring at only an 8’6 standing reach at the NBA Combine, the same as 2024 draft entrees Stephon Castle and AJ Johnson, Clifford ranked 45th in the country in defensive rebounding rate. This relentlessness on the glass was made possible by Clifford’s dynamic leaping ability, and more specifically his minimal load time on jumps. Clifford’s exceptional leaping ability, paired with his timing crashing the glass, allows him to contribute as a rebounder in a way virtually no other players his size are. While Clifford’s offensive rebounding rate of 4.5% is comparatively underwhelming, I believe this is a byproduct of Colorado State’s emphasis on limiting opponent transition opportunities at the cost of offensive rebounds. While they ranked 120th in defensive rebounding rate in the country, Colorado State was 302nd in offensive rebounding rate. Clifford’s internal clock as a rebounder manifests as a defender as well, where he’s able to fill a variety of roles, from hounding smaller players at the point-of-attack, chasing shooters off off-ball screens, and making long rotations as a backline defender and providing supplementary rim protection. 

As much confidence as Clifford’s unique basketball background and athletic traits give me, ultimately for a player his size to succeed in the NBA his shot will need to develop into a reliable skill. Clifford logged a pedestrian (relative to his position) 6 3PA/100 possessions this past season. However, his underlying shooting numbers provide reason for optimism. On 82 catch-and-shoot 3 attempts Clifford shot 41.5%, and his solid 38% on pull-up two’s only further substantiates Clifford’s potential as a reliable floor-spacer. Additionally, Colorado State’s playstyle elucidates Clifford’s underwhelming 3-point volume. As effective as Colorado State’s offense was with its given talent (61st in the country in adjusted offensive efficiency, per Bart torvik), its identity was almost entirely defined by motion heavy Princeton concepts, and this scheme in my opinion came at the cost of spot-up 3 attempts. Playing in almost exclusively 5-out alignments, a vacated paint enabled CSU to finish as perhaps the best cutting team in the country (95th percentile in cutting volume and 99th percentile in cutting efficiency per Synergy). Comparatively Colorado State finished in the 69th percentile in catch-and-shoot frequency. What makes Princeton offenses so reliable is how their concepts allow teams to generate efficient offense often in lieu of traditional ‘advantage creator’, however this emphasis on movement and a ‘creation by committee’ approach can come at the cost of clean catch-and-shoot attempts. And when Clifford’s role specifically is taken into consideration, he often is CSU’s most consistent line-breaking threat as a cutter and ballhandler. 

All in all, Clifford’s previous production, when contextualized with his basketball past and current college role, paint the picture of a player capable of rapidly calibrating his game to fit an NBA role. With Colorado State graduating their top scorer and highest usage player from this past season, Isaiah Stevens, Nique Clifford is poised to cement himself as a need-to-know prospect in the 2025 draft class. 

Stewart Zahn – Grant Nelson, Alabama

Arriving in Alabama via transfer last season, Grant Nelson carried a fair amount of hype with him from NDSU, where he was not only highly productive but also showcased alluring skill and athleticism. With a talented cast of teammates in Tuscaloosa, Nelson took on an entirely different role with the Tide, a role that only further highlighted his versatility. 

No longer a Bison and one of the immediate primary offensive options, Nelson adapted very well to a more supplementary role with Alabama (to be fair, a very well-spaced context). The profile of Nelson’s individual scoring opportunities drastically changed, with his post-up and isolation frequencies slashed (21.1% of opportunities to 5.3%, and 15.6% to almost nothing – 2.2% respectively). To his credit, Grant took it in stride and committed to his role, shifting his focus onto the more off-ball aspects of his position, such as spot-ups, screening/rolling, cuts and transition. In a fast-paced environment like Alabama, Nelson nearly doubled his transition frequency, and Coach Nate Oats even allowed him to run some PnR’s and DHO’s throughout the season. The ball-handling and passing both seem to clear his positional thresholds. Playing large amounts of minutes at center, while not his traditional position, Nelson displayed great technique as a roller. His rolls were fluid, his slips were quick and timely, and his PnP game was a crucial element to Alabama’s patented play-style and spacing. All of this is to say that Nelson’s game appears to have great malleability to provide whatever a team may need from their forward. 

Nelson’s efficiency in most play-types is quite good, with one exception: the 3-point shot. Even as a career 75% free throw shooter (81% last season) with a decent stroke, Nelson has yet to solidify himself as threatening perimeter shooter. Capable, with just enough volume to be respected, Nelson still has plenty of work to do to iron out his shot and turn it into a real weapon. Attacking closeouts is definitely in his wheelhouse as a ball-handler, and a proficient or even average shot from the outside would really open up the court to his driving ability. He even dabbled in some pull-up shooting out of PnR’s, and while the results weren’t great, he would make the correct read to shoot it, and that was encouraging to see.

Defensively, Nelson again was playing out of position for much of the year. It was necessary for Alabama to have their most potent offensive lineup, and Grant held his own on the other end. Undersized as an NBA center (and not what he will be asked to do at the next level), Nelson did exhibit pretty good understanding of positioning himself in relation to the roller. When covering PnP’s, Nelson’s mobility allowed him to get out to the perimeter for worthwhile contests. As the primary rim protector a lot of the time, the awareness, anticipation and reactivity Nelson demonstrated was pretty compelling, and he would use his length and timing to finish the job with a block. That should translate well to his more suitable position as a forward and thus a weakside rim protector, potentially contributing with some additional opposition at the rim. Also a serviceable perimeter defender for his position, Nelson checks a lot of boxes defensively. On top of all that, Grant was hard-nosed as a rebounder all year, and he earned himself Coach Oat’s Hard-Hat award ten times, tied for the most on the team. 

While his stats reflect a quieter year than at NDSU, Nelson proved himself a multi-faceted player at Alabama, with room to improve particularly as a shooter, which would have an amplified effect on the rest of his game. He will be striving to validate last season, and he will have the chance to encompass and maybe even shed the “underrated”  tag throughout the Draft cycle.

Avinash Chauhan – Motiejus Krivas, Arizona

Motiejus Krivas is a big dude with some serious skill. It doesn’t take much imagination to picture him dominating college basketball in the near future.

Let’s start with the bad: Krivas could very well be at the horrific intersection of non-shooting poor finisher and limited defensive upside. He shot a middling 58% at the rim last year, and more worryingly, lineups with Krivas at the 5 consistently scored worse at the rim than with the starter, Oumar Ballo. Arizona shot 4% worse at the rim with Krivas on the floor, and of Arizona’s 5 most common lineups, the two with Krivas fared by far the worst at the rim. Part of this swing is that he was backing up a pretty monstrous rim finisher in Ballo, but it’s pretty inexcusable that Arizona shot just 54% at the rim with Krivas on the floor. He may also appear to be low feel, averaging a whopping 6.1 fouls per 40 with a measly 4% assist rate, he took zero threes on the season, and perhaps worst of all, he garnered just a 3.4% block rate in 20 conference games. If you’re a non-spacer who does not contribute to positive rim scoring, you foul incessantly, and you’re unable to effectively pass or shoot OR protect the rim, what exactly are you doing on the floor?

But while we have 439 minutes of Krivas’s NCAA sample, we also have a 637 minute sample at FIBA U19/U18 Euros/U20 Euros, and 1000 minutes playing for Lithuania’s Zalgiris. Krivas wasn’t terrible in NCAA by any stretch, with a respectable 3.4 BPM in 36 games and an overall 4.5 lineup net rating across all competition. But Krivas was genuinely ridiculous in a number of important international events, and it would be foolish to throw away all the data we have for a low minutes NCAA single season sample.

Let’s talk about the shooting. It sounds pretty insane to say this about a guy who attempted ZERO threes in the NCAA season, but Krivas seems like a decent bet to get some threes up this year. First off, Krivas actually has a decent track record of 3P shooting volume in the past: he’s averaging about 1 3PA/40 across 28 FIBA games, and he put up 61 threes across his final two seasons in Lithuania. Now for the fun stuff: Krivas is a ridiculously good free throw shooter with notable volume (especially considering he is a FT drawing machine). He shot 73% FT in his final season in Lithuania (139/191), 70% at FIBA (78/112), and he’s coming off a 78% FT season at Arizona (49/63). What’s more impressive is that Krivas has progressively become a bit of a touch god around the rim, with a strong diet of runners and hooks sprinkled throughout heavy post up usage. Across his FIBA U20 tourney this summer + Arizona, a whopping 17% of his total shots have come on hooks, making them on a staggering 58% (18/31). Bart has him at 13/29 on long 2s at Arizona.

To reiterate, we’re talking about a 7’2 mf who was putting up 3s in Europe as a teenager, is pushing the high 70s FT on extremely great volume, and has the proclivity to take and make hooks at a high rate. And he’s still technically a teenager. Again, it’s never a great idea to bet on a guy who literally took no 3s in an NCAA season. But shooting dev seems uniquely feasible for this particular case.

Personally, I don’t care too much if he shoots or not, since he’s also an absolutely insane rebounder. Krivas is coming off a 14.7% OREB/22.8% DREB season in NCAA: there have been only 9 drafted players since 2008 to match those numbers across their career. It gets crazier: Krivas averages the most rebounds per 40 in the TWENTY EIGHT YEAR HISTORY of the U18 Euros (10+ mpg). His 21.8 rebounds per 40 is well ahead of 2nd place Enes Freedom (20.2), with Usman Garuba (18.6) and Marc Gasol (17.7) not too far behind. Again, pretty much every good Euro prospect has played in the U18 Euros, including so many notable bigs since 1996. It is an absolutely huge deal that he is the most productive rebounder on a minute basis in the entirety of available data for this tournament. 

He has similarly crushed the U20 Euros and Lithuania Pro League: he put up an unreal 19% OREB and 28% DREB across 48 games of LKL+NKL. He isn’t a Zach Edey/DeJuan Blair level rebounding prospect given the lower comp level, but Krivas really isn’t THAT far off. Throw on his massive 7’5 wingspan, and Krivas is pretty easily the best rebounding prospect in the class if he declares, and should be one of the best rebounders in the league from day 1.

Rebounding is often a measure of physicality, but in Krivas’ case, I think it’s a unique look at his unreal anticipation and impressive feel for the game. Again, his 4.2% assist/1.4% steal/6.1 FC may seem horrifying, but make no mistake: Krivas has a legitimately great feel for the game. This is a guy who has shown a history of racking up steals at a pretty great rate for his size: across ~ 100 Lithuanian league games, he was above 2% steal. He averaged ~ 1.5 steals/40 across all FIBA tourneys. Much of this is just being at the right place at the time: he’s able to anticipate reads through gaps and use his length to make easy pickoffs. But he’s also a legit great passer. He can make pretty solid reads out of the post, though he can be overambitious and thereby turnover prone (>17% TO in 100 NKL/LKL games).

But his passing feel is especially demonstrated through his FIBA numbers. Despite a middling 0.7 A:TO in FIBA and 4% assist rate in NCAA, Krivas has put up 12.5% assist, 20.4% assist, and 14.2% assist in his last 3 FIBA stretches. And before you question the value of FIBA Euros in ascertaining playmaking upside, consider an all time passing development case in Domantas Sabonis, who was a complete non passer in all NCAA and European pro league games but had a 7 game stretch where he was a productive primary initiator for Lithuania’s FIBA U18 team. With a consistent steal and assist track record, coupled with his sheer size and length, Krivas has a pretty cool combination of tools and feel that could lead to seemingly unexpected offensive development.

The list of strengths is getting a bit ridiculous. This is a dude who can rebound at an Edey-lite level, potentially shoot, generate steals and assists, and has one of the strongest FIBA production profiles ever. After all, he was 35 PER at U18 Euros, 35 PER at U20 Euros (led tourney), and 37.6 PER at U20 Euros (led tourney). 

It’s probably important to reiterate that Mr. Krivas is a 7’2 individual with a giant 7’5 WS. I once wrote about the history of underclassmen who measured at the NBA combine with a WS over 7’4 WS. It is an insane list with an insane hit rate. Oh, and he might sound like an uber slow Euro big with painful verticality and terrible lateral movement. Well the verticality is probably true, but Krivas legitimately moves very well. In fact, he measured at 3.55 s for the sprint and 11.88 for the agility drill, which was significantly better than his peer Aday Mara (4.04 and 12.81, respectively) and somewhat comparable to Pacome Dadiet (3.47 and 12.29) and Salaun (3.63 and 11.84). This is obviously a tongue in cheek comparison, since Dadiet and Salaun are definitely faster and prolly just didn’t know how to game the system effectively (hence their massive leaps at the combine), but their relative closeness to Krivas still underscores how well he can move. With his incredible wingspan, solid movement for size, and strong feel (adept steal and pass generator), Krivas theoretically shouldn’t be much of a defensive liability. In fact, most of his positive net rating was via defense: Arizona’s defense was 6.4 points better/100 possessions with Krivas on the court, and 7.7 p/100 against t100 comp. Much of this was through his rebounding goodness: opposing teams rebounded 3.3% worse and shot 3% worse at the rim with Krivas on the court. 

Herein lies the issue: Krivas had an undeniably positive effect on defense this past year, but most of that came from mitigating second chance points and less from actually blocking shots. Despite his 7’5 WS, he measured with a paltry 22 inch standing vert that would be amongst the lowest in the NBA. He clocked a pedestrian 12.9% HC dunk rate, and had just a 4% block rate this year. He’s definitely a physical player capable of backing down guys in the post en route to a heavy postup diet, and he’s put up ~ 50 FTr in nearly every context; but the lack of verticality is somewhat of a stifler. I think it’s fair to project a bit of improvement: he was hovering above 6% block in Lithuania, and he’s averaged a whopping 4 blocks per 40 (~10% block) across 14 FIBA games in the last two years. I am well aware that the NCAA and NBA are far different than FIBA tourneys (where bigs are much more prone to dominate given the differential rules) and Lithuania (LKL and NKL have “grown men” but its a pretty weak league generally). It’s not a 1:1 comparison, but is it not fair to project some improvements for one of the most productive youth FIBA careers we’ve ever seen?

Not every latent strength has to actualize for Krivas to return legit NBA value. European bigs tend to be a bit of a mystery box, even when we have significant track records for them in various youth simulacrums. The common thread does seem to be rebounding: from Sabonis, Mirotic, and Gasol to Freedom, Zubac, and Vucevic, there are tons of elite rebounding/productive Euro centers that found a role (because of their feel, productivity, and outlier rebounding). We know Krivas is productive, we know he’s going to bring immediate offensive and defensive value with his rebounding, and we know that he has exceptional length, agility, and feel for position. But what’s stopping him from reaching the path of these European contemporaries?  Is path to being a quasi-Vucevic possible for Krivas, especially since Vuc has a similar WS? Can he be a Nikola Mirotic type? If he stays in school a year or two more, can he emerge as a virtuoso passer on par with Sabonis and Gasol? Or will he never really put it together and have a Garuba type career? 

I think there’s some very conceivable flaws with Krivas, some that he may never be able to overcome. But I think we’re also completely undermining a sneaky upside tail, one that may be particularly manifestable given the departure of starter Oumar Ballo. 7’5 wingspans do not grow on trees, nor do prospects with long ass wingspans have the feel or outlier rebounding or historic production profile of Krivas. One of the greatest producers in FIBA youth history is potentially eligible for the draft, and it’s about time he’s given his due credit.

The post Roundtable: Underrated Returners appeared first on Swish Theory.

That’s the first question I ask myself as I begin the process for my 2024 NBA draft board. By separating production, feel and athletic premiums, I will try to show my notes as I sort out my analysis of 2024 prospects.

Starting with production makes sense given it is the most observable, and by far. Players produce by getting stats, and we have plenty of stats. However, it is not as simple as a 1:1 translation, as many highly productive college players struggle to reach close to that production in the pros. The reverse – little production leading to great production – is rarer, but still occurs.

For our analysis, the definition of production will be something like: “able to make things happen almost by accident through presence and skill.” The “by accident” part works to strip away feel from the equation, which will be the next article. “Through presence and skill” aims to remove the athletic component, the third prong.

While grading prospects based on expectations of future production is impossible with 100% accuracy, the hope is we can land close enough to separate our views from consensus. Rather than spend a long article describing how production can play out on a basketball court, I illustrate how production occurs through five examples.

Tier 1: Dominance

Primary Example: Zach Edey

How does he produce on the court?

Zach Edey is the pinnacle of production, as shown by his NCAA-leading Box Plus-Minus of 14.3. This is the 12th highest mark in the barttorvik.com database, after posting the 13th highest mark the season prior. Edey is a beast.

His production is far from hidden, either. At 7’4”, 300 pounds with a 7’10.5” wingspan, Edey is gargantuan. His movement ability has improved every year, too. With his combined size and movement abiliy, Edey creates events on the floor almost on accident. Add in nimble footwork and elite spatial awareness and you have a player not just lumbering around but dodging and flipping hips as well at his size.

It would be miserable to be screened by Edey or have to box him out. That physical dominance earns Edey a 10 out of 10 for production, but not just for current rather than expectations in the pros.

How easily does he produce?

The margins Edey wins by are astronomical. It is tough to scratch the ceiling above rebounding 26% of defensive opportunities or 17% of offensive ones. When he posts up, he is capable of holding that position for many seconds awaiting an entry pass, and then is able to convert that into a hook, drop step, or just straight dunking right over his opponent. There is more scoring versatility than meets the eye with Edey, simply through the variety of angles he has access to at his size.

In addition, Edey is a vigilant screener and passer. It is easy to imagine him as an NBA-level screener at his size and movement ability, and likely a very good one. He has figured out how to double-hand kick-out pass above all opponents’ heads, more difficult in the NBA with swarming long-wingspanned defenders, but Edey’s size to find better angles won’t go away.

How will this get harder in the NBA and how can he adapt?

My counter-intuitive take is it might, in fact, get easier in the NBA. At the college level Edey has to deal with a double or triple team every single time he touches the ball. This has likely boosted his assist rate (again, the biggest area of production concern), but raised the degree of difficulty on his finishes (not that it mattered). The ease with which Edey can navigate multiple surrounding defenders swiping at the ball to still turn and finish should not go unnoticed, and might indeed lead to continued easy buckets in the pros.

Edey’s weakness is defending away from the basket, but as a likely drop defender that should have little impact on his overall production. His steals will be low but blocks high (he has swatted 8% of opponent attempts) and rebounding should continue to be above average for a big, if not flat out excellent.

Edey has improved his movement ability and fitness quality every year with Purdue. This provides a lot of encouragement to his ability to adapt to the pros. However, it is possible (if not likely) that his opponent will have to do more of the adapting, to Edey’s size and skill. Edey has put up historic usage and rebounding rates while shooting a spectacular 67% true shooting (84% at the rim, 41% midrange, 72% from the line) to the point that even a standard deviation drop would still be excellent. He makes things happen on the court constantly and will at the next level, too.

The question of whether the speed of the game is too much for Edey ignores the major strides he’s made in his fitness and also his dominance per minute. He might need to make additional improvements to physique to play over 30 minutes per game but he has shown the ability to do that the past two seasons at Purdue. Advanced training in the NBA (Zach has not yet turned 22) can help that along. However, Edey’s talent is worth slowing down for, and that would only likely be a little.

Examples of others in this tier?

None

Tier 2: Conditional Dominance

Primary Example: Reed Sheppard

How does he produce on the court?

Reed is on the opposite end compared to Edey’s stature: at 6’3” and 187 pounds, Sheppard faces an uphill battle for his production. He compensates with everything else.

To be a productive player you have to make unlikely events possible, and that’s exactly what Reed does. His greatest strength is his positioning and hand placement, as one thinks themselves open to only be surprised by a last second Sheppard. Sheppard’s production is difficult to separate from his feel, as he moves across the court almost automatically in optimal position. The production is real and significant all over the court, as Sheppard’s 12.4 Box Plus-Minus is the highest for all freshmen by a long shot. Indeed, he only trails Zion Williamson, Anthony Davis, Chet Holmgren, Michael Beasley, Evan Mobley, Karl-Anthony Towns and Kevin Love in the all-in-one box score statistic. The height hasn’t mattered to reach historic production already compared to his age group.

This means Sheppard’s production is all-encompassing, from stocks to rebounds to assists and points. By being in the right position and having the skill to capitalize, Sheppard looks like one of the most productive college players of all time.

How easily does he produce?

What prevents Sheppard from landing in the first tier is his stature at only 6’3” (and that might be generous). Simply by that fact the margins for him to overcome are more significant than for someone like Zach Edey who will always be a foot taller than Sheppard. His handle is also more functional than masterful, limiting his roaming with the ball and thus blocking off an area of potential production. Neither has mattered in the least for Sheppard, but he may find himself struggling to have an impact inside the arc against a trying matchup here and there in the pros.

The production on defense, however, is undeniable. Sheppard feels omnipresent on the court, rotating faster than one can process watching him. He is very strong, capable of banging in the post and stonewalling drives, but more importantly knows how to leverage that strength. This will give him a lynchpin on defense, not being attacked physically, to then make things happen with his rapid, accurate hand movements or by popping out of nowhere.

The distance shooting is bankable, too. He has taken 8 threes per 100 possessions and made over half of them. His release is lightning fast with little load time and good release point. That volume shooting will help space the court at any level, making closeouts easier to reduce the burden on his handle, and also open up passing lanes. Reed is not the most manipulative passer but, similar to his handle, is excellent at making it functional nonetheless.

How will this get harder in the NBA and how can he adapt?

Sheppard is so masterful in what he does well and versatile across the court it is highly likely he will produce at a high level in the NBA. The biggest challenge is the longer wingspans blocking off his passing lanes on offense and making his contests more difficult on defense. But Reed has already found ways to compensate for both. He gets off the floor very quickly with good ‘instant vertical.’ His hand placement often shows awareness to exactly where an opponent’s release point will be, or where they will gather before the attempt.

Sheppard’s feel for the game hints at future improvements, but that is for the next article. Sheppard is capable of producing (and likely very well) at an NBA level today with his activity, physicality and versatility of skillset. He creates events almost automatically as he gets into an opponent’s body or lets it fly in a split second from deep. Despite his stature, he is imposing physically in his own way.

While there can be knits to pick for his athletic tools, getting blown by or shot over here and there, he has used those opportunistically to reposition and make something happen even so.

Examples of others in this tier?

Jonathan Mogbo, Ron Holland

Tier 3: Omnipresence

Primary Example: PJ Hall

How does he produce on the court?

Post ups, spot ups, rolling to the basket. Cuts, transition looks, putbacks. PJ Hall does all of those things at least once per game. He also does that while vacuuming up rebounds, blocking shots and getting some assists and steals. His 30% usage for Clemson is top 10 in the country.

PJ Hall is active. Although not the quickest laterally (steals his weakest stat), Hall is a bruising big, listed at 6’10” and 238 pounds, who is physical all over the court. His front line speed and explosion is better than the mobility otherwise would suggest.

And yes, he scores from all over. While not the most difficult of looks – he only has five made shots off the dribble – it points to his variety of usage. By being strong and physical and constantly in place, Hall is ready.

How easily does he produce?

Hall is only in the third tier for this reason: the margins are often thin, especially for his scoring. His rebounding is likely the most ironclad contribution: Hall has a decent wingspan and can get off his feet quickly. Contested boards become clean ones often, with PJ claiming his with fervor.

The blocks come next, again benefitting from his interior strength and above average leaping. While far from a primary rim protector, an opponent would at least not be able to lose track of Hall’s location.

Hall has plenty of scoring versatility in college, which works for him in some ways but against in others. To start with the bad news, there is no obvious easy day one offensive specialty. His outside shot is okay (33% from deep, 79% from the line) with better luck inside the arc (57% from two). His primary scoring output comes from post ups, at 7.4 per game.

The good news is the breadth of skill means you don’t have to choose any single way to use him. Hall can fill in admirably in many spots. His post ups are not slow and plodding but decisive and featuring many drop step dunks. Posting up might not be his sweet spot but rather a means to an end.

How will this get harder in the NBA and how can he adapt?

The biggest difficulty for Hall on an NBA floor will be sticking to his man. While likely quick enough to guard your average big, he would often be faced with an athletic gap when defending in space. His fitness and physicality will counter that, a locked in facet of his game regardless of competition.

The biggest question is his willingness to let it fly, a major source of production in itself. Should he continue to let it fly with little hesitation, perhaps bolstered by a little more improvement in his percentages, Hall being in Tier 3 means he has more than enough stuff to stick around.

Examples of others in this tier?

Cody Williams, Matas Buzelis

Tier 4: Consistent Presence

Primary Example: KJ Simpson

How does he produce on the court?

Playing against KJ Simpson must feel like whack-a-mole: wherever you snuff out his movement, a moment later he’s popping up elsewhere. At just 6’2”, Simpson overcomes his stature a few ways: his strength, his instincts, his vertical pop, his quickness. These all make Simpson difficult to screen and difficult to keep out of the paint.

Let’s return to our definition of production, “how many things does he make happen by accident?” As he’s #13 in the NCAA for Box Plus-Minus, it seems a lot. He rebounds (16% rate), assists (26%) and gets plenty of steals (3.4%). He leads his team in usage at 27%. The statistical case for Simpson is very strong.

Simpson is capable of no-load threes as well as skying in for the occasional dunk (9 so far this season). He gets into his pull-up smoothly with four self-created perimeter points per game. He may not be a traditional tank knocking people around to cause chaos, but he can do it surgically while powerfully.

How easily does he produce?

The visual evidence is murkier than the stellar statistical resume. KJ Simpson wins often by small margins, but is intentional enough in his application that he gives just enough effort to win. This hints at Simpson being able to scale up or down at the NBA level as he can deliberately focus his efforts onto different roles. Need an on-ball initiator? An off-ball catch and shooter? A closeout attacker? A ball-moving connector? Simpson can effectively do any of these.

On defense, the steals come by activity and physicality. Simpson can bully weaker NCAA guards, even at only 189 pounds. He hits screeners when he is screened and boxes out hard. These might not all create events but it does carve out space on the court, and more than all but a few NCAA guards.

How will this get harder in the NBA and how will he adapt?

The NBA is not kind to small guards. But how small does Simpson play, really? There will be many plays that simply sail over his head which would not at the NCAA level, with the NBA full of big and wing creators. But Simpson’s role and athletic versatility will ease the adjustment.

While small guards still survive in the league, the margins are very thin. Simpson needs to continue refining his toolset to ensure an NBA impact. Already built and quick and a good leaper, Simpson is not far off from the median point guard’s athleticism, and may be greater than. But the easy victories will stop, only tough ones from here. This is why I ultimately knocked him down to an 8.5, in spite of a stellar of a statistical resume as nearly anyone in the NCAA.

Simpson is a good bet to find a way to contribute, but the degree is highly uncertain. Regardless, that’s a bet I’d be comfortable making in the first round.

Examples of others in this tier?

Tyler Kolek, Baylor Scheierman

Tier 5: Selective Presence

Primary Example: Milan Momcilovic

How does he produce on the court?

Milan Momcilovic is not convincing as an NBA-level athlete, but has the tools and skill to succeed regardless. His production is the most siloed of any we’ve described so far: he takes (and makes) a ton of threes. Despite this narrow avenue of contribution, Momcilovic still ranks in the top 10 for high major freshman by Box Plus-Minus. This is because Milan is 6’8” and has a quick, high release. Sometimes the analysis doesn’t need a second question: Momcilovic produces by hitting unblockable shots.

The rest of his game is middling, dragged down by his poor foot speed, limited burst and stiffness. A 12% defensive rebound rate and 2.1% block rate are closer to the stats of a 6’5” prospect than a 6’8” one, but there is a baseline of production nonetheless. And while Milan is not very mobile, he is still enough to be a consistent presence guarding fours.

How easily does he produce?

Momcilovic’s production is tilted towards three point volume, and that’s where he’s winning by large margins. The effective release height on his shot is more like a 6’10” player than a 6’8” one, releasing above his head with great arc. When we’re talking about projectable production, it is difficult to get more bankable than a release point that high going in at a 40% rate on very good volume. But that’s what we have with Milan.

His size comes in handy, even if not snagging down rebounds or skying for blocks. At his size he can set effective screens and generally be a big body on the court. Even when he’s not adding to his stat total, he’s taking up more space than the average NBA player.

How will this get harder in the NBA and how will he adapt?

He will be attacked on defense. Finding the right player to park Milan on will be essential for his early career success. Milan has little chance of hanging in with either 3s or 5s, relegated to the non-explosive 4s. That makes the margins tighter on offense where he has to be successful with his strengths. This is why Momcilovic is in Tier 5, as there is little guarantee he can hang in enough to capitalize on his strengths.

But the bedrock of high volume, high accuracy three point shooting is a function needed by every team, and Momcilovic is convincing as almost anyone in the class for that role.

Examples of others at this grade?

Wooga Poplar, Tre Mitchell

The post How Prospects Make Things Happen appeared first on Swish Theory.