“How is he going to stick in the league?” is a question you hear every draft season as scouts, teams and fans alike begin the inexact science of prospect evaluation and projection. Every NBA draft prospect has a unique collection of skills, but it is their bread and butter that gets them into the league and minutes on the court. 

Success in the NBA is about singular excellence, even amongst its role players. While supporting skills are important and can be added over time, nearly every single player in the league has a single, defining skill upon which their on-court identity is based.

That skill slots a player into an on-court role or archetype, but its impact goes further than that. What separates star players from the rest is not just how effective their skill is, but their ability to leverage that skill for greater results. 

On a macro level, it is helpful to place players into archetypes. Basketball is a team sport with an ever-churning mill of player movement. Identifying the big-picture skills of a player and how that applies to your specific team construct is inarguably positive. At the same time, particularly in the case of teenage prospects, the labels of an archetype can be inherently restricting and reductive of their potential.  

For players entering the league an archetype is a big-picture term that defines your initial role and pathway to minutes, but a prototype is an outcome unique to each individual. In this piece we will dive into two prospects with an outlier combination of shooting and height. How does their skill project to an NBA floor, and how can they leverage that skill to find their own identity as a star in the league? Roll the tape and let’s dive in.

Brandon Miller

Archetype: Floor Spacer 
Catch and Shoot, Deep Range, Movement Shooter

Brandon Miller is one of the greatest shooting prospects we have ever seen at his size, that is an unimpeachable fact. Miller’s combination of age, height, three point volume and usage is nearly unprecedented, resulting in one of the most dominant offensive seasons in the country.

Miller came into the year billed as a smooth shooting scorer, but his success beyond the arc is what carried his value this season. A constant threat any time he was on the court, it often felt like no three was too deep for Miller, jacking up shots well beyond the NBA line on a regular basis. 

That version of extreme spacing, not just to the arc but feet beyond it, is incredibly valuable in today’s NBA. As offenses have begun to hunt threes more regularly, defenses (and their personnel) have improved in recovery. The extra few feet of space beyond the arc gives space for a cleaner look and a much longer path for the defender to take in any kind of help rotation. 

In transition, Miller is a threat as soon as he passes halfcourt, a master of pace and timing when running the floor. Miller has no issue outpacing defenses in transition but is often found within the thicket of bodies as they cross halfcourt. 

To some this may be a lapse in effort, but I see it as the subtle brushstrokes of a transition artist. As defenses scramble to contain the ball it is easy to lose track of shooters in a free flowing transition attack and Miller uses that to his advantage.

As the drive begins to develop Miller starts his approach, timing his arrival on the three point line in sync with the driver and positioning himself within the open space just as the defense pulls in towards the paint. That awareness of space and timing will result in a ton of easy buckets for Miller throughout his career. 

His excellence in timing is fueled by Miller’s ability to find center as he relocates around the perimeter, using pristine footwork beyond the arc to rise into his shot on-balance. Miller’s transition play and his ability to score out of DHO or off-ball screen actions should solidify his floor of value in the league as one of its most scheme-able tall shooters. 

Prototype: Morey-Ball Forward Initiator
PnR Operator, Drive and Kick, Ball Handling

The analytics “revolution” is a hotly contested topic, as is any topic claiming to be the answer of an unsolvable puzzle. Even in an uncertain environment, basic logic and math often go hand in hand. Threes are worth more than twos and the most efficient twos occur at the rim. What is the easiest way to get up more threes? Force the defense to rotate. How do you force the defense to rotate? Get to the rim.

The reason these “Morey-Ball” principals have worked to the extent they have is that its two core tenants, rim pressure and threes, are symbiotic. Spacing provides lanes for driving, rim pressure creates defensive rotations and open threes, rinse and repeat. 

More formulaic than creative, the math-ketball style of offense makes the game simpler while providing an unsolvable problem for defenses. Brandon Miller’s game represents much of that philosophical ethos with his red-hot shooting and burgeoning game as a drive and kick initiator. 

Miller averaged over two self-created rim attempts per game this season, an impressive number for a jumper-oriented wing scorer, and his growth operating out of ball screens as the year went along was incredibly impressive. 

Miller has a long slender build, but is a strength-based athlete. This presents a few challenges for Miller as a creator and has forced him to develop his craft as a driver rather than relying on burst or brute force. 

When operating out of ball screens Miller does a great job using misdirection, change of pace and wide-angle drives to manufacture lanes to the hoop, gradually growing in effectiveness as the year progressed. 

While Miller isn’t particularly “bursty” he has long strides and impressive strength digging out of pseudo-lunges as he unfolds his limbs attacking the paint.Combined with a long wingspan and a genuine willingness to initiate contact, Miller was a genuine threat attacking the basket in Alabama’s pace and space scheme. 

As a result of his continued growth as a driver, Miller began to draw not only defensive attention but defensive help. Standing at ~6’9”, Miller was able to easily see over the top of defenses to find shooters on the perimeter or bigs in the paint. Flashes of manipulation with his handle and passing angles were particularly encouraging, he does more than just hunt for his shot. 

This is what makes Miller such an intriguing proposition. He is one of the best shooters in the country that safely cleared the requirement for rim pressure needed to provide genuine impact. On a more effectively spaced court, the vision of Miller as an off-ball scorer that can operate as a secondary initiator, breaking down the defense and finding open shooters, is both a realistic and tantalizing projection.

Limiting Factors: Two-Point Scoring and Off-Ball Defense   
Space Creation, Finishing, Quickness

Creating offense is the name of the game for any potential star, and while Brandon Miller is not the quickest or shiftiest handler, he does a great job using misdirection and irregular stride patterns to beat his man and combat rim protector in the paint. His growth in this area was encouraging throughout the season, but it is worth noting Miller does not have the typical tools of your “star wing scorer”, relying more on subtle hesitation and craft. 

The actual results were mixed, with flashes of intriguing craft and moments of real worry. Ultimately, Brandon Miller shot 33/84 (39.3%) at the rim in the halfcourt this past season, a number that paints the picture of a disadvantaged rim threat. Beyond even finishing, getting to the rim is work, and isn’t something that works out every drive.

For skill-oriented initiators, having a reliable and creative mid-range game is an invaluable tool to help make up for a lack of undeniable rim pressure. Miller has a beautiful turnaround jumper he often resorts to off a broken drive, but there was little variety (or success) this year beyond that. 

The effectiveness of that shot is noteworthy, as is what makes it an effective option. The natural fade of a turnaround in the lane gives Miller a little extra space and a slightly elevated release point on his jumper. 

Despite his height and shooting talent, Miller shot 7/24  (29.2%) on pull-up twos in the halfcourt last season. His release point and lack of space creation tools (upper body strength or lateral quickness) narrowed his avenues for potential success within the arc. 

Midrange jumpers have to be easy for teams to let you shoot them, and that may prove to be a steep hill to climb. The lack of volume is surely a reflection of Alabama’s offensive scheme limiting mid-range looks, an easily dismissed red flag. The efficiency, namely the lack of comfort Miller showed operating within the confines of the arc as a shooter, is more noteworthy. 

Miller shot a higher percentage (32.9%) on dribble jumpers from three than he did from the mid-range, and that further clarifies the issue at hand. Beyond the arc defenders play further off, allowing more room for Miller to get his shot off. Within the confines of the arc that space shrinks, and when that happened Miller did not have the tools to create the space himself.

On the defensive end there feels like little to note. Miller is excellent at high-pointing rebounds in traffic and had a few highlight-reel worthy chase down blocks in transition, but beyond that the cupboard is relatively bare. He uses his length well in isolation and containing drives, but really struggles to navigate screens and move his feet with quicker guards. 

The off-ball defense is what stuck out to me as the largest pain point. Miller was good at anticipating rotations as a weak-side rim protector but the rotations themselves were often meandering in nature, a gradual shift of position rather than a succinct rotation. 

He doesn’t have the quick twitch athleticism to dig and recover out to shooters in an effective manner and is often left shuffling in no-man’s land closing out to shooters. Miller was often given the least threatening defensive assignment, making these struggles within his role more concerning. 

Without an easily translatable defensive impact, it is the magnitude of Miller’s offensive success that will carry his value. A high-tempo, five-out offense that prioritizes threes and rim attempts could help many of these issues, but there is a more specific context needed to maximize Miller’s offensive talent than your typical star wing creator. Even in an ideal team context, it will take intentional creativity to make things come together. The inherent conflict of a uniquely skilled prospect.

Jett Howard

Archetype: Floor Spacer
Movement Shooter, Off-Ball Movement, Pull-Up Shooter

The case for Jett Howard as a potential lottery pick is an easy one, and not dissimilar to Brandon Miller. There are not very many players listed at 6’8” that can get up threes on volume like Jett this past season. 

I have been told using 13 in a bart query is malpractice, but you can’t argue with the results. Freshman wings do not shoot jumpers at this kind of volume with this kind of success. There are certainly some areas for concern, even on the offensive end, but Howard’s projection as a floor spacer is about as clean as they come.

The first point I want to hit on here is the volume, not simply the number but rather how that number came to be. Jett was used at Michigan in a variety of different sets, but was most commonly found sprinting around the perimeter like a stretched out version of JJ Redick.

Howard thrived as a tough shot-maker, though more in the complementary scoring sense than an on-ball one. In a three-point oriented league, the ability to actually get up shots is an incredibly difficult and invaluable skill. Howard’s combination of shift, off balance shotmaking and quick release are the makings of a floor spacer that works in nearly any environment.

Beyond his off-ball excellence, Howard is a talented shooter off the bounce with the ability to adjust his release angles to account for contests. Close out hard? Howard has no problem relocating with the ball in his hands to get a cleaner look.  

His mechanics off the bounce are clean and the results show it. My thoughts on Howard always return to the same place: teenagers this size should not be this comfortable shooting the ball. This is not normal, but what exactly does that mean?

Prototype: Jumbo Scoring Guard
Pull-Up Shooter, Closeout Attacker, Ball Handling, Off-Ball Movement

The ultimate vision for Jett involves finding each and every way possible to weaponize his shot. At Michigan he was able to showcase some of that versatility, but it often felt like food was left on the table. With a usage rate of only 21.8, Jett Howard may be the first coach’s kid ever to not get enough on-ball reps.

With his height and fluidity getting into his shot off a live dribble, Howard was an incredibly effective pull-up scorer on volume that feels entirely too low. That same jumper malleability, contorting his shot to match the defender’s contest, is even more valuable within the arc. When the space shrinks up, Howard has the coordinated creativity to still get off a quality look. 

Actually making shots is the biggest hurdle for young shotmakers, yet Howard proved to exceed expectations in nearly every facet. Synergy has a new metric this year Synergy Shot Making (SSM) that tracks how a player shoots compared to the expected value of each shot.

For any one-season statistical sample, it is important to remember nearly every data point you use is subject to the biases of small sample size, particularly with shooting numbers. 

With that said, I would like to compare the samples of Jett Howard and Brandon Miller in different types of shot types and settings.

Jett’s “quite good” numbers off the catch pale in comparison to Miller’s astronomical season, but off the bounce was a different story.

Despite his billing and overall statistical profile resembling that of an off-ball shooting specialist, Howard’s game off the bounce was efficient in just about every playtype or spot on the court you could imagine. 

As I talked about with Miller, having a reliable midrange game to fall back on when a drive dies on the vine is incredibly useful, and Jett’s projection there is more encouraging than one would think. Miller is bound to improve here with some added repetition and strength, but at nearly an entire calendar year younger, so should Howard. While his actual volume of rim pressure was significantly lower than Miller, so was his opportunity. What wasn’t lower? His efficiency as a shotmaker. 

Howard is an A-1 shotmaking prospect at 6’8” that, at times, seems to be hiding in plain sight. Shooters at this size don’t come around often, and when they do they are almost always a seasoned upperclassman gradually increasing their volume. As a teenager, Howard is already there. Outlier talents tend to produce outlier results. 

If that happens? Howard has the tools as a passer to truly capitalize on elite shotmaking. He had a solid assist rate this year for an off ball wing of 12.9, but the flashes were incredibly enticing. As a reactive passer with a solid awareness of his surroundings Howard should thrive as a connector early in his career. If the self-creation is able to develop as he grows into his frame, Jett has the height and awareness to capitalize on it. . 

Limiting Factors: Rim Pressure and Defense
Strength, Explosiveness, Defensive Activity

On the concerns side, you have to start with the physicality. Howard was an all-time poor rebounder for his height and that showed on tape. He was habitually hesitant to get into the mix of bigger bodies in the paint, even with a height advantage. 

This is where his projection as a more guard-oriented wing than forward applies. Howard lacks much of the skills required to play the three or the four, from the above mentioned rebounding or a relative lack of weakside rim protection. 

As a guard, Jett did well chasing shooters around screens on the perimeter and using his size to recover once beat. He doesn’t have the quickest feet in the world and I certainly wouldn’t want to deploy him at the point of attack, but his lack of interior value defensively feels, to an extent, insurmountable. Finding a less harmful alternative may be a better option than trying to force a square peg through a round hole.

Jett moves his feet well on the perimeter, but I would like to see him use his length more effectively. He isn’t particularly slow laterally, but often looks like it by taking steps too small to keep up with his opponent. 

As a help defender his digs were rarely impactful, but his timing was solid. He isn’t incapable of recovering to shooters, and even flashed moments of good ground coverage, but is generally unpolished in that regard. Jett was a below average defender this past year, but with added weight and refinement a passable one feels within reach. A low but meaningful bar.

This lack of strength and explosive athleticism shows itself on the offensive end as well. Jett is methodical with the ball in his hands, similar to Miller, but generates significantly less downhill pressure on his drives. He struggles to handle bumps and turn the corner on defenders in an effective way, making him even more reliant on mid-range jumpers.

It is worth noting Jett was sidelined this offseason due to sprains in both ankles he suffered during the season. That is a major hamper on one’s lower-body athleticism, and a significant reason for hope going forward. Getting healthy certainly won’t turn Jett into a rim-pressure wing, but it should help lessen the gap he needs to make up in order to operate as a functional scorer with the ball in his hands. 

My ultimate question regarding Jett is just how negative is his lack of rim pressure? His ability to create quality looks at the rim on his own was resoundingly poor, even when accounting for the injuries he was playing through. Howard was more efficient shooting off the dribble than either he or Miller were laying the ball up this past year. 

How good does his mid-range game need to be to create gravity resembling rim pressure, and how can he use that to manufacture more attempts at the rim? Howard is not an unskilled finisher, but simply did not have the physical tools to get there this year. That isn’t going to get easier against bigger and stronger athletes, and his success will almost assuredly originate in skill and manipulation rather than force.

Outliers and Outcomes

In the grand scheme of things, Howard will need to add a significant amount of size and strength to have anything resembling an on-ball role. That is far from an impossible task, it is exceedingly normal for 6’8” teenagers to gain weight as they enter their twenties, but it will need to be significant. Howard and Miller will have a similar hill to climb in that respect, though Miller is much more comfortable handling physicality at this current stage.

That lack of physicality in comparison is reflected across the court from handling bumps to rebounding to screen setting. Miller may be the thinner build, but he is the more physical prospect, and that is what makes him a significantly safer bet.

The two are more similar than given credit, like opposite sides of the same coin. Miller’s advantage in physicality and base-level shooting create a much safer floor for his NBA value, but the hill from good to great is visibly steep. 

Jett on the other hand has no such floor, where his lack of strength and explosiveness leave him a man without a country defensively. That possibility is much more realistic than with Miller, but if Jett is able to get to the level of good, you might be surprised by how quickly he becomes great.

The post Archetypes and Prototypes appeared first on Swish Theory.

The sample for NBA draft prospects is tiny. Even if we have perfect data for a player’s prep and pro careers, the top draft prospects are typically aged 18-22, undergoing massive changes to their games and lives over the span of mere months, over and over in evolving environments and around new personnel.

Combing through that limited data, we search for narratives, precedents, guys that “just have it,” from a scout’s perspective.

In search for a method to the madness this cycle, I’m splitting my draft analysis pieces into three:

• “Whiteboard” Prospects: those whose stats improve as they play worse competition, declining, then, against the top teams
• “Green Flags Only” Prospects: those whose stats exceed certain thresholds regardless of level of competition
• Everyone Else

This, first of two pieces, looks at what I’m calling Whiteboard prospects. Their top-end traits are obvious, but for that reason can be prepared for by the better opponents. As I watch this group, I seek to answer two questions:

• Do they struggle against increasing competition in a way that would be a problem in the NBA?
• Do they simply dominate lower-ranked competition that much?

Definition

I defined Whiteboard Prospects as having a certain set of traits decline against good competition, increase against bad competition:

• Box Plus-Minus
• Percentage of teammates’ FGM assisted
• True shooting percentage
• Steal rate.

As long as these decline from all competition to games against top-100 teams, then again against top-50 teams, and are also on Swish Theory’s Big Board 1.0, they’re a Whiteboard Prospect.

Let’s get to it.

Brandin Podziemski, Santa Clara

• vs. all competition: 10.0 BPM
• vs. top 100 teams: 6.5 BPM
• vs. top 50 teams: 3.9 BPM

Podziemski I thought was going to be an easy read, especially given the severity of decline, the single largest from overall comp to top-50 in our sample. But it was far from that.

Against bad competition, “Podz” did everything. Shooting at a 66% effective field goal percentage and 28% usage, he also maintained a 25% assist rate, 21% defensive rebound rate and 3% steal rate. His stats were heavily buoyed by, simply, never missing from three, where he took over half his shots and made over half of those attempts. That is basically impossible to stop, especially if you are a team ranked in the 200-400 range.

Against better competition, the athletic limitations showed, as expected. He struggles to create much distance on his dribble moves, leading to forced tough angle floaters, but those still go in at decent rates. Truly, Podz put up a historically efficient scoring season.

Projecting that at the next level is tricky. 80-179 (45%) from three, 62-146 (42%) from midrange, 75-121 (62%) at the rim is tough to argue with, but 8-17 (47%) from three, 7-25 (28%) from midrange and 7-19 (37%) from close range is what he tallied against top-50 teams. Another reminder of the inherent uncertainty in percentages.

However, Podziemski is armed with a mighty weapon to limit this downgrade against better competition: he plays really hard, and processes the game very quickly. There is one type of game processing that is Chris Paul-like, setting up one play to set up the next, and then there is Podz’s sharklike approach, always advantage-seeking from all angles. He goes for the kill with his hit-ahead passes or finding cutters, which leads to some sloppy turnovers, but, when coupled with his nose for the ball, means Podziemski will pick up change wherever it comes loose.

Finally, his pull-up three is legit. The release is low, but he needs little room to get it off and has enough 1-2 release patterns to get there.

Results: Primary odds fade, but secondary and especially tertiary shine. He’ll find a way to contribute, I’m sure

Brandon Miller, Alabama

• vs. all competition: 11.0 BPM
• vs. top 100 teams: 9.9 BPM
• vs. top 50 teams: 6.5 BPM

We move from Brandin to Brandon, first to second largest decline in overall production as NCAA competition increases. This exercise was less kind to Alabama’s Miller, placed in a cushier position and, given he is a 6’9’’ ballhandler projected to go in the top 5, the light is naturally a bit harsher.

The obvious knock on Miller this season was his rim finishing. He shot 74% at the rim against teams ranked 50-400, an elite figure that fits a top scorer prospect. But only 44% at the rim against teams in the top 50, representing about half of his possessions. Considering Brandon is also old for a freshman, this is a bit concerning for a player with his level of touch and fluidity with the ball.

Miller’s drives tend to develop slowly. His handle is strong, as are his ball custodian instincts, making him a decent point forward option to kick off an offense with a pull-up threat. But, while he can create initial separation, he lacks the flexibility to lower his shoulder to turn angles to the rim or burst to hit those openings, and his vertical takes long to load. Both of these factors combine to mean forced difficult finishes, which he figured out to some extent but will remain a problem in the NBA.

Perhaps more concerning, however, was the defensive tape as competition increased. Alabama is full of rangy, athletic wings who can handle tough matchups. This allowed them to let Miller, with his team-leading usage, take easier assignments. One of the main consequences of going up in competition is stronger worst option, and this showed with Miller’s defense. The same lack of flexibility and burst that limits his finishing also make Miller a worse chaser from interior to perimeter. His help was often too conservative into the paint, with not enough burst to then close out effectively.

His long wingspan and overall solid instincts mediate this, but I would not be surprised if Miller would be targeted significantly in a playoff series in his prime. That may be an aggressive take, again considering his feel for the game is strong overall, but I think it is more representative of his ability than the current top 3 talk.

Miller has a lot to like, especially how good he is at locating shooters off the dribble while he probes for his shot, or how he gets set off the move into his three. But the overall state of his game reads more like a #10 pick than top 5.

Results: some rust to the star shine

Judah Mintz, Syracuse

• vs. all competition: 1.5
• vs. top 100 teams: -0.2
• vs. top 50 teams: -2.5

Judah Mintz has a space creation and space maintenance problem. His touch is legit, but opponents know it, and with limited volume from three point range for a guard, he can be predictable in how he gets into it.

Mintz is young and has time to build counters for this, as there are plenty, but I would not feel comfortable rolling him out on an NBA court next season until there is much more evidence of that. He shot 43% on 67 runners, a figure I’d be comfortable penciling in as Mintz’ floor for the shot type. The average degree of difficulty, particularly as competition ramped up, was sky high.

He has built his game around a shot that will always be available to him – tough floaters – but that is still unlikely to be very efficient offense on its own, particularly with a lack of strong acceleration. But, Mintz is also blessed with an advantage-seeking type of passing creativity. Not necessarily the best at setting up an offense, Mintz has a keen eye for brief moments of openings, and also how his shotmaking creates them.

That is a potent combination for a scorer, but the scoring needs more supports. The easiest solution, by far, is to up the three point volume. Judah took more midrange attempts (189) than any freshman with so few three point attempts (66). When factoring in his strong FTA and rim attempt counts, that puts him in the company of De’Aaron Fox and Tony Wroten as far as previous draft picks, Elfrid Payton when including sophomore seasons. Mintz’s burst is certainly closer to that of Payton than Fox or Wroten, and we saw what happened to Elfrid without credible three point volume.

Mintz shot 6 of 24 (25%) from catch and shoot and 11 of 35 (31%) from pull-up threes. Not great. He seems hamstrung by a lack of strength, a lanky build but time to add on. Adding core strength should be Judah’s priority #1, helping both with his burst and ability to launch when opponents go under on pick and roll.

Suffice it to say, Mintz has a strength issue on defense as well. He has good passing lane instincts, once again making up for his lack of consistent presence with timely high-value plays.

Mintz has a route to being a very potent scorer, but I think it would benefit him to spend either another year in college or significant time in NBA weight rooms to get there.

Results: Potential end of shotclock star, with a 1-2 year path to get there

Terrence Shannon Jr., Illinois

• vs. all competition: 6.1 BPM
• vs. top 100 teams: 5.1 BPM
• vs. top 50 teams: 2.1 BPM

I was a bit shocked the degree to which Shannon’s stats declined as competition increased, given his athletic profile and semblance of shotmaking, playmaking on both ends. But the tape revealed clear limitations to TSJ’s handle in particular that make me concerned for his ability to fit into an NBA team quickly.

Terrence Shannon Jr. is fast, perhaps the burstiest player in all of college basketball. That is an extremely, often underrated quality for an NBA player to have, one I just complained about lacking in Judah Mintz’ game currently. If you give the ball to TSJ as he gets downhill, he’s gonna get downhill. He can hit any straight line gap and keep the space with his strength. He will get open court NBA steals this way.

However, the cupboard is a bit bare when it comes to options for maximizing this advantage. In particular, Shannon is extremely left-handed, and with few handle counters beyond his pull-up if opponents sit on it. Another fortunate trait of Shannon’s, though, is his touch is indeed good. I’d bet he shoots among the best in the class for those with shortest load time into pull-up threes: a hand-tracked stopwatch estimate places him often around 0.4 seconds from plant to release, about a tenth of a second quicker than Mintz.

On defense as well, I hope for more from TSJ. I’ve long been a fan of his versatility as a big guard, but on this watch found myself having doubts on his ability to handle difficult matchups in the NBA. He knows how to be physical when engaged, but often floats near his mark and gives up space he shouldn’t. Perhaps with NBA-level training this can improve, but still disappointing for an upperclassman who could have been more of a stalwart for the Illini.

TSJ is a Whiteboard prospect, but likely shouldn’t be at this point in his career. He has had success with his pull-up (88th percentile) but at the cost of refining his catch and shoot mechanics (29th percentile), the latter of which will be more important for his life as an NBA role player. Without the star equity that a developed driving game (0.8ppp) would enable, his inconsistent presence on defense becomes a greater concern as well.

Results: NBA athlete, but the skills development has to continue

Maxwell Lewis, Pepperdine

• vs. all competition: 1.2
• vs. top 100: -2.2
• vs. top 50: -2.4

First of all, we have to address the baseline of production. That degree of negative box plus-minus – a box score measure meant to estimate plus-minus – is extremely concerning for a prospect mocked in the first round. I have wanted to believe in Max as even a lottery level prospect, as his tools are that enticing, particularly his stride length, length for position and shotmaking abilities. The combination of qualities he has is rare. Extremely rare. And a good star predictor too. But having 13 games against top 100 competition and only shooting an effective field goal percentage of 46% and turning the ball over at a 23% clip to 14% assist rate, only 1.3% steal rate despite those tools is a major red flag.

To my dismay, this showed up in the tape. To be fair to Lewis, he has not been in organized basketball for as long as many he faced and Pepperdine had many flaws in the roster. He often faced completely stacked defenses, so that when the shot clock dwindled, he would face endless help. But that is the archetype he will be expected to succeed in, and the numbers when under pressure (0 shooting fouls to 8 turnovers in late shot clock situations) showed up in the tape as he often stepped out of bounds when rushed.

But, man, he has such creativity in finding his shots I almost don’t want to care. When we write about Whiteboard prospects, this is exactly the prototype. I believe Lewis has as good of instincts as any his age at finding a gap to attack automatically as he drives, it’s just cleaning up the rough edges around that which need a lot of work.

The reward here is high, and tangible: Max can hit difficult shots with the best of them. But a team needs to be keenly aware of what to expect as far as his year one usage. He will be targeted on screens. He will turn the ball over if help takes him by surprise. But he’ll teleport across the floor with the ball before gracefully dropping it in, too.

Results: Whiteboard prospect embodied, elite shotmaker potential but little faith in being a consistent foundation piece without major improvements

Adem Bona, UCLA

• vs. all competition: 5.0 BPM
• vs. top 100 teams: 4.6 BPM
• vs. top 50 teams: 2.8 BPM

Bona is a bit surprising to be found on this list, by all accounts a solid rim protector who does his dirty work and doesn’t overextend elsewhere. That remained the case during my tape watch, but I see why his stats changed so much, as well.

A big factor is his role in UCLA’s system. They have elite wing defenders in Jamie Jacquez Jr. and Jaylen Clark to rack up stocks, and Tyger Campbell, while not imposing in size, is a ball demon to create transition offense. Against bad teams, adding Bona into the mix is simply not fair. UCLA rarely lets up clean paint touches against sub-100, even opponents in the 50-100 range. And when they do, Bona is ready to pounce.

Against the top 50 squads, where UCLA faces more of a challenge, Bona was used in many different ways. This is his genius: you can throw Bona in a full blitz, in a hedge, drop, man on the perimeter, helpside rotator, whatever, and he’ll be useful. Bona understands how to use his length, strength and speed as instruments in whatever task, an ability that will benefit playoff teams in particular with his defensive versatility.

There are cracks that form, however, particularly in his often overzealous rotations, throwing off the timing in sync with the team defense a bit, and I think his timing on blocks is more very good than top 1% among shotblockers. This can mean having to recover from distances longer than he needs, and not being quite able to pull it off. That can be developed, but does mean I could see him struggling a bit to kick off his NBA career even if playing even harder.

Then, there’s the offense. I struggle to see him ever been a true positive offensive player, but can make it work with constant screens and vigilance to look for lobs. His box outs are spectacular, as well, using his body to create space as well as anyone I’ve seen this draft cycle. However if he gets the ball and doesn’t know immediately what to do with it, things can get ugly, as he is simply not comfortable doing things beyond catch and finish.

With his special defensive versatility, he’ll find his way to NBA relevance at some point. Keeping things simple would help him fit neatly into a very valuable type of rim protector.

Result: NBA-ready rim protector, just needs to slow things down

Taylor Hendricks, UCF

• vs. all competition: 7.1 BPM
• vs. top 100 teams: 6.4 BPM
• vs. top 50 teams: 5.1 BPM

Being further down this list means “less dynamic,” or, most consistent across components, and that is exactly what I discovered in watching Hendricks’ tape. The primary trend being picked up, I believe, is that as a member of a #63-ranked team by barttorvik.com, UCF was a cuspy NCAA team that could take out lower ranks with ease but struggle against the top 20s.

An interesting phenomenon took me by surprise, though: as his teammates struggled increasingly against future professional basketball players, Hendricks’ uniqueness popped. After all, his 5.1 BPM against top 50 teams is still second best on this list so far.

Hendricks has two traits that will serve him very well early in his career. First, his shot has an automatically stabilizing quality to it, as if a string goes directly through his shot pocket. It is light into the loading and skies maximizing Hendricks’ seemingly over seven-foot wingspan. Second, he has unbelievable lateral movements combined with elite hand-eye placement on blocks or steals. Physically, I feel like he is one of the more underrated athleltes, even as he is considered universally a very good athlete. Behind Wemby, Scoot, Amen and Ausar, Hendricks provides instantaneous movements and blankets entire sections of the court.

His help rotations need some work, too often pinching in too far or struggling with the complexity of multiple screens, but seemed to do increasingly well as his responsibilities increased. He always plays hard and is ready to be challenged. He does not let up easy layups, as he has the tools to make plays at the rim from distance.

The biggest issue with Hendricks is his lack of any real craft inside on offense, defaulting to a quick jumper instead of trying to solve those problems. But mitigating that is that fact that, well, his quick jumpers are really good. He has displayed some passing creativity, if not consistent advantage creation, but also hunts drive angles and is able to get his body lower to the ground than you’d think to maximize angles.

I came into this watch considering Taylor Hendricks an easy top 20 but probably not top 10, certainly not top 8 prospect. Now I think he could finish top 5 in the class eventually, and his warts are maybe not as bad as those talked around him, given the flashes of sky-high upside.

Results: a top 10-worthy pick

Keyonte George, Baylor

• vs. all competition: 4.7
• vs. top 100 competition: 3.9
• vs. top 50 competition: 2.9

Keyonte George’s projection is complicated by unusual usage, often the third guard on Baylor parked in the slot. At IMG Academy he had more clearcut combo guard duties, where he had more priority in the offense to take advantage of above-the-break spacing. George, as well as upperclassmen Adam Flagler and LJ Cryer, took turns initiating, and with little interior threat, often had to do so within single possessions.

A more fluid offense will benefit George mightily at the next level, where his combination of skills is compelling. In particular, Keyonte has lightning quick processing off the catch, able to whip the ball to open teammates in a flash or rise into his smooth, technically sound release. That optionality, in addition to proficiency out of the pick and roll, where Synergy ranks him in the 81^st percentile on possessions that ended in his shots or passes, give him a valued skillset at the NBA level.

Where the tape turns against George, however, is placing his athleticism against NBA athletes, a major part of the story when his production drops against better competition. First, it’s simply easy to get Keyonte out of frame by targeting him on defense. At 6’4’’ and more SG than PG, Keyonte does not have the lateral quickness or length to contest after being screen or on distance close-outs.

On offense, again we see the combination of short for position and slow-footed for position reflect poorly on his ability to create much distance off the dribble. His side step into a three is very good, an important sign of developing counters to otherwise lackluster space creation. In particular, if he can develop a stampede step or heavy crossover into a Harden-style double-stepback (first onto one foot, then two), those types of menu items could launch him into stardom.

Right now, however, I see an extremely useful offensive player who could grease the wheels regardless of landing spot.

Results: The elite is elite and obstacles are obvious; what level of starter could he be remains a major question mark

GG Jackson, South Carolina

• vs. all competition: -0.5 BPM
• vs. top 100 teams: -1.6 BPM
• vs. top 50 teams:  -1.9 BPM

GG’s numbers were ugly no matter how you sliced the competition, but saw his assist and steal rates deteriorate the most as the opponents improved. Jackson was in a rare spot for a freshmen, with only Collin Sexton, Markelle Fultz, Jabari Parker, RJ Barrett, Jaylen Brown and D’Angelo Russell taking on greater usage all over the court as high major freshmen. That entire crew had over 100 attempts from the rim, midrange, three and free throw line in their sole NCAA season with usage at 30% or higher, an astronomical task for a freshman-aged player. Factor in how GG was not just young, but the youngest player in all of college basketball, and you get an even more unusual burden. Then, put on top of that the context of South Carolina being not just bad, but not even a top 200 team, and I understand if you’re throwing up your hands in confusion.

GG has earned a reputation as a chucker with low feel for the game, descriptions that may be correct at cursory glance but I believe to not hold up to further inspection. First of all, the context around him really is that bad. Factoring into how tight he was covered, his efficiency for both guarded and unguarded catch and shoot is both exactly league average.

Jackson’s efficiency was worst in isolation possessions, as, on a team with no other advantage creators outside of him, opponents could send as much help as they wanted. Lack of entry passing ability meant early seals or hard cuts would go unrewarded, though Jackson still kept making them. So he not just leaned on isolation possessions, but ended up #15 in the NCAA in iso possessions at 103.

When South Carolina’s lone traditional big sat, Jackson’s efficiency improved a significant degree (). It is true his passing creativity and vision is poor, but he is still able to zip establishing passes to keep an offense in rhythm (when he’s not in iso). An off-ball role would benefit him tremendously, as his turnover rate dropped significantly and efficiency was average to excellent in all of off-screen, roll man, putback, cut and spot up opportunities.

I believe in Jackson as a lottery bet on his ability to even take up this amount of offense on his shoulders, built with broad shoulders and a lightning quick second leap to make his presence consistently felt. His shooting form looks great to me, and ability to execute complex footwork at his size is often shocking. Those traits are what are valuable in isolation, with an inevitably better team context giving him upside we likely cannot yet discern.

Results: the most unusual context, but I see a future NBA scorer

The post The 2023 NBA Draft’s “Whiteboard” Prospects appeared first on Swish Theory.