This draft has a good and clear cut top 3 overall between Paolo Banchero, Jabari Smith Jr., and Chet Holmgren. It’s a good year to land in the top 3, but then the draft falls off a massive cliff and whoever picks #4 is left in a brutal spot unless another team makes the mistake of taking Jaden Ivey in the top 3.
There are 3 clear upside pulls on the table for #4 overall: Jaden Ivey, Jalen Duren, and Shaedon Sharpe.
I have already written about Ivey, he is enticing for his elite speed and athleticism and ability to get to the rim, but his limited size for SG and questionable basketball IQ add a fair amount of downside to his profile. He is currently slated to go #4 on ESPN’s mock draft, but he has enough red flags such that it is worth considering other prospects for that slot, so let’s get into the other two options:
Sharpe
Shaedon Sharpe is currently projected #6 overall and is a fascinating mystery box, as he was #1 RSCI in this year’s high school class before reclassifying to Kentucky where he did not play this year. We are working with thin information on him, as his 12 game EYBL sample is the only somewhat meaningful stat sample to go off of.
He averaged 22.6 pts 5.8 rebounds 2.7 assists 1.5 turnovers for UPLAY Canada with 36.4% 3P on 6.4 3PA/game and 63.5% FT. He is listed at 6’5 or 6’6 with a 7′ wingspan, and is a good athlete but not outlier elite like Ivey. He turns 19 in May, which makes him slightly old for his high school class.
The good news for him is that he has the golden SG dimensions, especially if he measures 6’6. It seems that 6’6 with 6’11 wingspan is the baseline where players are capable of being elite without being point guards or generational 3 point shooters with Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and Vince Carter as 3 big examples of guys with approximately those dimensions. It would be nice to get confirmation with official measurements, but Sharpe seems to make the cut.
The downside is that while he is a clearly + athlete for the NBA, he still may be a notch down athletically from those guys which makes it a bit more difficult to get hyped for him having hall of fame upside. He is athletic enough to not be ruled out entirely, but it feels overly optimistic to bet on him landing in that tier.
Also he does not seem to be a defensive stopper, with just 10 steals in his 12 EYBL games in spite of his monster length. He is physically capable of defending in the NBA and may become adequate on this end in time, but this is a bit of a red flag.
He nevertheless can get off a high volume of offense without turning it over, has great physical tools for a SG, and is young enough to have a compelling upside. His realistic upside comparisons are likely along the lines of guys like Michael Finley, Michael Redd, Jason Richardson, or Rip Hamilton. Which isn’t bad in a weak draft outside of the top 3, and he has some outs to surpass this group.
But without any thick reason to have conviction in him hitting, he also has downside risk and could be a Ron Mercer or Shabazz Muhammad.
It’s difficult to get overly enthusiastic on Sharpe with such little info, but there is no major obstacle to him being an all-star caliber SG if he develops smoothly. This should be enough to put him in the conversation for #4 overall.
Jalen Duren
Duren has an exceptionally intersection of youth and tools, as he is 6’10 with a 7’5 wingspan, a chiseled 250 pound frame, good athleticism, and does not turn 19 until November.
He is still raw in terms of basketball IQ and skill, but he did show some glimmers of potential as a passer and made a respectable 62.5% from the line.
The big selling point with his is that when somebody is so clearly + at each of height, length, strength, and athleticism, it is not particularly difficult to be a good NBA player. He has one comp that is basically his twin in Derrick Favors who was also 6’10 with 7’4 wingspan. Per 100 possessions:
Prospect
Age
PTS
TRB
AST
STL
BLK
TOV
PF
2PA
2P%
FT
FTA
Dunks
Duren
18.1
26.7
18.1
2.8
1.8
4.7
5.0
6.1
18.1
60%
8
62.5%
5.46
Favors
18.5
26.5
18.0
2.2
1.9
4.4
5.3
5.6
17.3
61.3%
8.5
62.9%
3.14
They are basically the same thing, except Duren is 3 months younger with better passing and more frequent dunks, and should have the higher upside tail. Favors was considered to have elite intangibles pre-draft, which would likely be his biggest advantage over Duren. Overall these prospects seem equal with possibly a small edge to Duren.
Favors had a solid career for a non #1 overall pick, but he also would be fairly boring as we enter an era where bigs are less commonly used.
Now let’s compare him to some prospects who are not as identical statistically, but have similar physical profiles since that is the defining feature of Duren:
Prospect
Ht
Wing
Weight
Jalen Duren
6’10
7’5
250
Alonzo Mourning
6’10
7’6
240
Dwight Howard
6’10
7’5
240
DeAndre Jordan
6’11
7’6
250
Andre Drummond
6’11.75
7’6.25
279
Damian Jones
6’11.5
7’4
244
James Wiseman
7′
7’6
240
It may be a bit optimistic to compare him physically to Howard or Jordan, the same way it is overly optimistic to compare Sharpe to MJ, Kobe, and Vince. They have the same body and dimensions, but there is nevertheless a significant difference between being an 80th or 90th percentile NBA athlete vs 99th percentile explosive freak.
It is unlikely that he matches Dwight’s MVP caliber play in Orlando, although Dwight never developed his passing or shooting so there is some non-zero chance that Duren can reach that level if his skill level develops particularly well.
For now let’s focus on comparisons between Duren and guys who actually played in college, starting with Hall of Famer Alonzo Mourning’s freshman season at Georgetown as well as his career averages over 4 NCAA seasons.
Prospect
Age
PTS
TRB
AST
STL
BLK
TOV
PF
2PA
2P%
FT
FT%
Duren
18.1
26.7
18.1
2.8
1.8
4.7
5
6.1
18.1
60%
8
62.5%
Mourning
18.9
26.3
14.6
1.4
0.9
9.9
3.9
6.8
15.4
60.9%
11.5
66.7%
Mourning
20.4
31.7
16.4
2.2
0.9
7.2
4.7
6.4
16.8
57.2%
16.2
75.4%
Just looking at freshman year Duren had some significant advantages….he was 9 months younger with double the steal and assist rates as well as more points and rebounds. Zo destroyed him on blocks and had a higher FT rate and FT%
Mourning settled to 69.2% FT over his NBA career and that skill edge made him a 7 time all-star who finished top 3 in MVP voting twice, as he was defensive player of the year twice with his elite rim protection. It’s not clear if Duren is as athletic as Mourning, but they seem close enough physically such that this is a fairly exciting comparison if Duren develops his shooting and is able to make a major defensive impact in his own rite.
Prospect
Age
PTS
TRB
AST
STL
BLK
TOV
PF
2PA
2P%
FT
FT%
Dunks
Duren
18.1
26.7
18.1
2.8
1.8
4.7
5
6.1
18.1
60%
8
62.5%
5.46
DAJ
19.4
25.6
19.3
1.5
0.6
4
5.2
6.1
16.8
61.7%
11
43.7%
?
Drummond
18.4
21.9
16.6
1
1.8
5.9
3.4
4.8
18.7
54.1%
5.7
29.5%
5.25
D Jones
18.5
27.2
13.7
0.5
0.7
3.3
4.4
8.1
19.8
54.3%
10.4
54.5%
2.83
D Jones
20.5
30.6
15.2
2.5
0.5
3.6
4.3
7.2
20.8
59%
11.2
53.6%
2.59
DAJ and Drummond were slightly bigger and true center sized while Duren is slightly short for the position at 6’10, but in terms of on court production, he is solidly better than both. The first thing that stands out is that they were terrible NCAA players and it is stunning they had as much NBA success as they did.
In spite of being more than a full year older than Duren, DAJ had substantially fewer steals and assists, fewer blocks, more TOVs, and a much worse FT% that he hardly improved in the NBA. He required multiple outlier leaps from his first two seasons to reach his peak, so this isn’t what should be typically expected of a player who shows so many flaws in college. But when you are a physical freak these leaps are possible.
Drummond also was dreadful for UConn, as his profile is flaws on flaws on flaws. He scored a low volume with worse efficiency than Duren, had a microscopic assist rate, and his FT rate and FT% were both outright pathetic. And Duren dunked slightly more often in spite of being slightly smaller. Drummond was never quite as good as his box score production suggests, and is a somewhat boring type of player in the modern NBA, but he nevertheless had a surprisingly long and productive career considering his myriad flaws while being 3 months older than Duren.
Damian Jones was the most similar negative comp I could come up with, but he is not in the same ballpark as a prospect as Duren. James Wiseman is likely a better negative example since he had Duren’s pedigree and hype going #2 overall as a fellow Memphis alum, but it is still difficult to compare him because we only saw his disappointing rookie season and he lacked a real NCAA statistical sample with some major statistical flags in AAU.
Wiseman is likely a reasonable enough cautionary tale, because all he needs to do is not have an outlier DAJ improvement arc and he is not going to be a particularly useful NBA player. But on average guys in this mold who are not good college players are capable of doing surprisingly well in the NBA.
Ultimately Duren is in a similar boat as Sharpe where it is difficult to have conviction in his goodness based on what he has done on the floor thus far, but he has not disqualified him from being a future all-star in any clear way and has plenty of upside between his youth and physical tools.
Other Options at #4
Ivey, Duren, and Sharpe seem like they should be the choices at #4 since they have the juiciest upside tails, but without any clear reason to have conviction that they will hit it is worth pondering if it is worth taking a guy with lower upside but higher median above them.
ESPN’s latest mock has Keegan Murray at #5, which seems too high. He is in a nice 3 + D mold, but his physical tools are meh, he turns 22 in August, his defense seems soft, and how much do you really want to bet on a 74.9% NCAA FT shooter becoming an elite NBA shooter? Too much bleh in his profile to take him above those guys.
AJ Griffin is slated at #8, and he has youth, length, and efficient role playing on his side as he was an elite spot up shooter for Duke. He rarely turned it over, was efficient from all levels, and has an NBA dad which bodes well for his NBA development. He could be similar to fellow Dukie with an NBA dad in Gary Trent Jr., and if things go well enough he has upside to be better. But he is somewhat mechanical in his movement to get too optimistic for his upside, and his shooting is somewhat of a small sample to have too much faith in. I would slate him later in the lottery.
Dyson Daniels is #10 and Jeremy Sochan is #15 currently. These are 3 + D guys who are most interesting to me as types who have easy paths to goodness and are in molds that will be coveted by every NBA team if they hit. But their shooting and offense are both fairly weak, so it is difficult to have enough conviction to place them in the mix at #4. It is something worth considering if I watched enough film and was particularly impressed by either, but that has not happened at this juncture so for now they are in the 7-10 range.
Mark Williams is another guy who seems like a solid guy who is easily useful at #13, but the question is whether he has enough upside to vault ahead of the #4-6 guys. As of now I’d likely keep him in the same tier as Daniels and Sochan.
Benedict Mathurin is a wildcard at #11, as he is an exceptional athlete and turns just 20 in June. There is some chance he can develop into a Devin Booker type of big time offensive player. But there is also a chance he is mostly a spot up shooter on offense with mediocre to bad defense, and he only shot 78.9% FT in college so no guarantee he is an elite shooter in the NBA.
Then #7 Johnny Davis, #12 Ousmane Dieng, and #14 Ochai Agbaji simply do not belong in the lottery conversation. The easiest way to get an edge over other teams picking in the lotto or mid-first is to simply take these guys off your board.
Bottom Line
Dyson Daniels, Jeremy Sochan, and Mark Williams are all sleepers who could be better than all of Sharpe, Ivey, and Duren, but it feels like too much of a hot take to rate them there without heavy film watching that I have yet to do.
So for now it would seem the realistic debate is between Ivey, Duren, and Sharpe.
For me, Ivey is the weakest link of the group because even if he is clearly the most athletic, he has the most red flags between his limited size and mediocre basketball IQ. And he is already 20, and had the worst tourney game of any prospect against Saint Peter’s where he made an endless stream of bad decisions resulting in Purdue’s upset loss.
Ivey’s main value is going to be as a ball handler getting to the rim, and if he does not significantly improve his passing and decision making it is hard to believe you should want to build an NBA offense around him as the primary handler.
#4 on my board will in all likelihood come down to Duren vs Sharpe, which is a difficult decision. It seems that Duren’s mold hits more commonly since it is so easy to be a useful NBA player with those tools. But Duren also may be less coveted in his more common outcomes where unskilled bigs are not that valuable any more whereas length and shooting are perpetually in demand.
Gun to my head I will take Sharpe with the lowest conviction possible. This is how I would rank the lottery for now:
Oscar Tshiebwe was recently named the AP and Naismith men’s college basketball Player of the Year. And he deserved it– he had a monster year for Kentucky, posting elite statistics including the most rebounds per game (15.2) in NCAA D1 since 1979. He led a not so great Kentucky cast to 6th best kenpom team in the country.
While Kentucky had a disappointing round 1 upset loss to St. Peter’s, it was anybody but Tshiebwe’s fault (mostly TyTy Washington’s), as he posted 30 pounds, 16 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, and 2 blocks on 11/16 FG.
He is currently projected to go round 2 at #44 on ESPN’s latest mock, which at a glance seems reasonable given his limitations. Tshiebwe is 22 years old and while he was dominant inside the paint and on the glass, he is not a true rim protector at 6’9 and he lacks the passing and shooting to project as a perimeter player at this age, so he does not have a clear niche in the modern NBA. He is somewhat of an obsolete old school power forward, so it makes sense that his NBA draft stock does not align with his NCAA dominance.
Best Round 2 Steals:
Let’s analyze who have been the best round 2 picks in the lottery era dating back to 1985. We can start with most career win shares of round 2 picks over that time:
Internationals (Jokic, Ginobili, Gasol) and high school (Lewis) provided some of the best value because the NBA struggles with the lower/different information and drafts these types less efficiently than domestic college players.
Unfortunately this year’s international crop is incredibly weak, and it is unlikely that there is any sort of elite hidden gem in either round this season. So if we focus on domestic college players, that leaves these 9 plus active players Khris Middleton and Draymond Green, who could eventually reach this group and even if not had better peaks than some of the players on the list.
Carlos Boozer was never as useful as his box score stats implied because his lack of mobility made him a defensive liability. Cliff Robinson and PJ Brown had long and productive careers, but neither peaked high with one all-star appearance combined between the two of them.
So if we replace those 3 with Middleton and Green, that leaves a reasonable top 8 domestic round 2 picks with college experience. Perhaps we could include Gilbert Arenas to make 9 because of his 3 year peak of excellent box score stats, although he had no longevity and it is not clear that he helped his team win as much as his box score numbers suggested.
Among those 9, only 5 have 2%+ Hall of Fame Probability according to basketball-reference: Dennis Rodman (75.3%) is the only person actually in with Draymond (59.7%) having a solid chance of making it eventually and Arenas (21.6%), Price (18.3%), and Millsap (5.5%) all projected to be a buck short.
If we are looking for patterns, two guys who consistently show up as elite steals from any angle are Dennis Rodman and Paul Millsap. They share the commonality of extreme outlier NCAA rebounding, as well as surprisingly good steal rates but slid due to limited passing and shooting for undersized bigs. Interestingly, this description fits that of Tshiebwe.
Other Comparisons
The monster rebs + high steals + low skill is a distinct brand of prospect that 5 prospects clearly fit, with the two others being Kenneth Faried and DeJuan Blair who were drafted 22nd and 37th respectfully. Perhaps I am missing another example, but it is rare enough to find guys who rebound at this rate let alone guys who can rack up steals to boot.
Here are per 60 possession stats of their final college season:
Prospect
Age
Pts
Reb
AST
TOV
Stl
Blk
2P%
FTA
FT%
3PA
Millsap
20.9
20.8
14.1
1.2
2.6
1.9
2.4
0.571
6.5
0.623
0.5
Tshiebwe
22.1
18.9
16.5
1.1
2.1
1.9
1.7
0.606
5.3
0.691
0
Rodman
24.6
24.4
17.8
0.8
3.4
1.8
1.6
0.645
7.4
0.655
0
Faried
21.1
18.6
15.6
1.1
2.8
2
2.5
0.623
7.4
0.583
0.1
Blair
20.7
21.2
16.7
1.7
1.7
2.1
1.3
0.593
6.3
0.614
0
Note that Rodman’s minutes + pace are unavailable, so I just used his per game stats. He was a 24 year old man playing D2 basketball, so it is difficult to directly compare to these other guys, but you can see the similarity in his output.
Another odd (and perhaps meaningless) similarity is that Rodman, Millsap, and Tshiebwe all had lower steal rates in their first two seasons before seeing a big spike in their 3rd season.
Faried + Blair had relatively disappointing outcomes, but they did not flop completely. They had solidly productive careers relative to draft slot, but couldn’t find a niche to make an impact as their length and steal rates did not translate into NBA caliber perimeter defense and they were too small to guard bigs. And while their garbageman skills translated, they did not have enough shooting or skill to overcome their defensive warts.
Rodman and Millsap did prove to be good, versatile defensive players, with Rodman winning two defensive player of the year awards and Millsap making NBA all defensive 2nd team once. Millsap also became surprisingly good on offense, as he became a competent NBA 3 point shooter and developed some point forwards skills.
Collectively box score production has translated to NBA for all of these guys, and the biggest factor swinging outcome is whether they hit their low end defensive outcomes (Faried, Blair) vs their high end (Rodman, Millsap).
Now let’s look at measurables:
Prospect
Height
Wing
Weight
Tshiebwe
6’9
7’4
255
Millsap
6’7.25
7’1.5
258
Rodman
6’7
7’2
210
Faried
6’7.5
7′
225
Blair
6’6.5
7’2
277
Being 2″ taller than any of these guys is an interesting advantage for Tshiebwe’s defensive versatility. He is still too short to defend star bigs like Jokic or Embiid, and is not a true rim protector, but that extra height does give him potential to play at least situationally as a small ball center.
And if he develops into a quality perimeter defensive player like Millsap or Rodman, he has the size to match up with big star wings like Giannis, Durant, and Luka.
This gives Tshiebwe an easier path to finding a defensive niche than these guys, as well as a bit more defensive upside outside of Rodman who was more athletic.
Next Closest Comps
This super long, super rebounder in a thick wing body mold is so distinct that there are not many other guys who even loosely pass for it. Let’s throw out some of the closest examples to be found:
Prospect
Age
Pts
Reb
AST
TOV
Stl
Blk
2P%
FTA
FT%
3PA
Tshiebwe
22.1
18.9
16.5
1.1
2.1
1.9
1.7
0.606
5.3
0.691
0
T Robinson
20.8
19.9
13.3
2
3
1.2
1.0
0.505
6.8
0.682
0.5
Sullinger
19.8
20.7
10.9
1.5
2.3
1.4
1.3
0.531
7.3
0.768
1.3
McGary
20.8
14.3
12.1
1.4
2.3
2.2
1.3
0.592
2.9
0.513
0.1
B Wallace
21.3
15.9
13.3
0.7
2.4
1.3
4.7
0.5
7.7
0.374
0
Thomas Robinson had all sorts of disadvantages. He was a worse rebounder, especially offensively which has more predictive gravity, and his steals and blocks were curiously low. He played a slightly bigger offensive role, but was a fairly inefficient scorer. And this was after he played a small bench role for his first two seasons. It’s curious that he seems like a poor man’s version of the mold, but he went 5th overall when these types typically go late 1st or round 2.
Jared Sullinger was a much worse rebounder and slower with fewer steals and blocks but had more skill. Not really the same.
Mitch McGary was a fascinating weirdo. He was taller at 6’10 and didn’t have a monster wingspan at 7’0, but still had a crazy steal rate. But he had other holes in his numbers, and he couldn’t stay healthy enough to be an informative data point.
Ben Wallace is the best undrafted free agent of all time, and these are his numbers guessing a 65 possession/game pace for his D2 Virginia Union team. It is surprising that he was not a bigger rebounding outlier playing D2, but he continually improved his rebounding rates in the NBA until leading the league in rebounds per game in his 6th and 7th seasons. He also had a higher steal rate in the NBA than his final year in college, although he did get more steals in his prior NCAA season.
But he had his differences from OT, as he was a vastly better shot blocker while being unskilled to a tragic extent. That turnover rate and 2P% for a relatively small offensive role at D2 makes it easy to see why he went undrafted, and he never leaned to make free throws shooting 41.4% for his NBA career.
Ultimately Wallace and Tshiebwe are different players, but it is fairly encouraging that Wallace shares the outlier rebounding trait to provide another example where it led to major draft overachievement.
Summary
It is interesting that how outlier rebounding has been a commonality in some of the best domestic prospects to slide out of round 1 in the lottery era. Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman are the only two Hall of Famers over that time that played college basketball and did not get picked in round 1, and Paul Millsap has one of the better hall of fame cases even though he likely will not make it.
It’s not quite fair to compare him to Rodman and Wallace who are better athletes and multiple time winners of defensive player of the year. But it should be encouraging to know that Tshiebwe has some commonalities with them and with more offensive skill could become a better offense, lesser defense version– essentially Paul Millsap.
Granted it is a bit of a longshot that he both becomes a Millsap level defensive player and develops his perimeter skill, but the similarities between them are too strong to rule it out like we can rule out similar upside for most second round prospects.
And even if he does not hit his full Millsap ceiling, there are a number of other outcomes that are a happy return on a late 1st round pick or early 2nd rounder.
If he posts Kenneth Faried or DeJuan Blair box score production with a more competent but still not great level of defense, that’s a good return on a draft pick. Faried and Blair both accumulated top 20% career win shares for their draft range, and bad defense is the only thing that precluded them from being particularly useful toward NBA team success.
Of course he could also be “just” a Faried or Blair type role player who doesn’t really add value outside of eating regular season minutes at a passable level, but everybody outside of the top 3 could be bad this year. It’s not a scary floor outcome.
Where Does Oscar Fit in 2022 Draft?
Tshiebwe seems to be somewhat obviously the highest upside prospect currently projected to go in round 2. The other compelling options are mostly guys who could be quality role playing wings who cannot honestly be compared to past prospects who became multiple time all-stars.
He definitely is a first round value, but how high in round 1 does he go? This is where it gets tricky because he is so weird with such few similar past examples. Perhaps Blair + Faried are the more likely outcomes for this mold, and Millsap is an outlier with a career arc never to be replicated again. Or perhaps the mentality that goes into that level of rebounding is predictive of success in other aspects.
But he has obviously better upside than a number of 1st round guys. For instance, 6’5 SGs such as Johnny Davis, Malaki Branham, Ochai Agbaji, and Blake Wesley are all projected top 20, but none of them fit anything resembling a high upside NBA mold. It is difficult to fathom how it is correct to pick any of these guys ahead of Oscar.
Looking in Tshiebwe’s height range, internationals Ousmane Dieng (#19) and Nikola Jovic (#23) are younger, but have no interesting selling points toward their NBA upside. It seems clear that neither should be valued higher than OT.
Or if we compare him to a fellow old with elite college stats, Keegan Murray is only 9 months younger and projected at #5 overall. Keegan had slightly better PER (37.8 vs 35), WS/40 (.311 vs .297) and BPM (15.7 vs 13.3) and fits a more traditional 3 + D mold, so it is understandable that he is ranked higher.
But Tshiebwe has a much better wingspan (7’4 vs 6’11), better on/off splits, and outlier rebounding has been more predictive of late draft steals than Murray’s outlier low turnover rate historically. And even though Murray is the much better 3P shooter, Tshiebwe is not too far behind in career FT% at 69% vs 74.9%. There is some chance Oscar learns to make NBA 3’s and their shooting peaks relatively close, with Tshiebwe being much better defensively where Keegan appears to be soft.
So it seems like it should be fairly close between the two. Perhaps Murray belongs in the back end of the lottery and Tshiebwe right outside of the lottery. It is difficult to say because both are fairly weird and unique prospects. But it is curious that for older guys with gaudy box scores that Murray is getting every benefit of the doubt while Tshiebwe is stuck all the way back in mid round 2.
What is clear that Tshiebwe has upside, and when he hits he is going to hit harder than anybody else in round 2 and a number of round 1 prospects in a weak class. It is difficult to see 20 guys that belong ahead of him, and he has potential to be steal of the draft.
In a draft with a Big 3 of Chet Holmgren, Jabari Smith, and Paolo Banchero, Jaden Ivey looms as the dark horse at #4, with some hype of belonging in the top 3.
6’4 Ivey is incredibly explosive, and likely will be a top 1% athlete in the NBA. He uses his speed and athleticism to blow by defensive players and finish at the rim. He is also a competent shooter, making 74.4% FT and 35.8% 3P on 5 attempts per game. This makes him a versatile scorer at all levels, and he leads the #1 NCAA offense with 17.3 points/game.
He is more of a combo guard than a true point. He essentially finished in a 3 way tie for his team lead in assists per game (3.1), slightly more than his turnovers (2.6). This puts him on the fence where it is unclear if he can develop the floor general skills to run an NBA offense.
He has a wingspan reported anywhere from 6’7 to 6’10 and a nice frame, and does not shy away from physicality in the paint getting to the line regularly with a 46.9 free throw rate. This gives him potential to play bigger than his size, and possibly match up with taller perimeter players.
But he is nevertheless undersized to guard wings, and right now he is not a good defensive player. This flaws in tandem suggest that he will probably be a bad defensive player in the NBA, and could be a major liability.
Overall Ivey’s athleticism and scoring gives him tantalizing upside, but he needs a number of things to go right between the development of his shooting, passing, and defense for that upside to hit.
Nuclear Athlete = future MVP Candidate Upside?
Given his nuclear athleticism for a lead guard, it is worth wondering how close he can come to NBA MVP candidates such as Derrick Rose, Russell Westbrook, and Ja Morant:
Age
PTS
TRB
AST
TOV
STL
BLK
2P%
3PA
FTA
FT%
Ivey
19.9
33.1
9.3
5.8
5
1.7
1.1
0.531
9.5
11
0.744
Morant
19.4
37.3
8.7
15.3
7.8
2.7
1.2
0.556
7.2
12.5
0.813
Rose
19.2
30.0
9.1
9.5
5.4
2.3
0.7
0.521
5.3
10.3
0.712
Westbrook
19.1
23.6
7.2
8.0
4.5
3.0
0.3
0.497
3.6
7.2
0.713
These guys are fairly similar in a number of ways, but Ivey is significantly behind in terms of assists and steals in spite of being 6 to 9 months older than the rest of the group. He has nowhere near the natural PG skills of this group, which makes it hard to see him having similar offensive upside.
Westbrook had the excuse of lower offensive output while sharing PG duties with junior Darren Collison. Ivey had the keys to an offense surrounded by elite shooters, and does not have that same excuse.
Let’s shift our focus toward all-star caliber combo guards who are common comparisons: Victor Oladipo and Donovan Mitchell:
Age
PTS
TRB
AST
TOV
STL
BLK
2P%
3PA
FTA
FT%
Ivey
19.9
33.1
9.3
5.8
5
1.7
1.1
0.531
9.5
11
0.744
Oladipo
20.7
28.7
13.3
4.3
4.8
4.6
1.6
0.644
4
7.6
0.746
Mitchell
20.3
28.1
8.8
4.9
3
3.7
0.9
0.463
12
5.7
0.806
These guys were a bit older than Ivey, and similar in a number of categories, except there are a few significant divergences. First– both guys absolutely crush Ivey at steal rate, which is a vitally important signal toward becoming a + defensive player at combo guard size (and NBA star in general). Oladipo also massively outrebounded Ivey (especially ORB% 10.4 vs 3.1 for their careers) and Mitchell is a solidly better shooter with a much lower turnover rate.
Ivey is more explosive and proficient at creating his own shot at the rim drawing free throws than these guys, but as his only major strength he is not quite as multidimensional as these two.
Let’s shift our attention to combo guards whose value largely comes from scoring, such as Jamal Crawford, Jordan Clarkson, and Zach LaVine:
Age
PTS
TRB
AST
TOV
STL
BLK
2P%
3PA
FTA
FT%
Ivey
19.9
33.1
9.3
5.8
5
1.7
1.1
0.531
9.5
11
0.744
Clarkson
19.6
30.2
7.1
4.7
4.9
1.7
1
0.461
6.8
10.1
0.784
Crawford
19.8
27.0
4.5
7.3
5.1
1.8
1.5
0.468
9.6
4.8
0.784
LaVine
18.8
22.1
5.9
4.2
2.7
2.1
0.4
0.494
8.1
4.3
0.691
Now Ivey’s assist + steal rates are more in line with these guys, and is a more reasonable forecast of what to expect. His superior athleticism shows with better rebounds, 2P%, and FT rate, but all of these guys became good NBA shooters which is far from guaranteed for Ivey. And even though Clarkson + Crawford were more slithery than explosive, they still were able to create their own shots at the rim.
LaVine had a smaller offensive role given that he was playing on a loaded UCLA team with a more experienced Kyle Anderson, Jordan Adams, and Norman Powell handling the ball. Had he stayed an extra year and assumed a larger role, it would have been reasonable to expect him to have a similar sophomore performance to Ivey.
So this seems reasonably good for Ivey. MVP candidate seems unattainable, but he still has some loose comparisons to all-stars like Oladipo and Mitchell, and more realistically you are getting something on a scale of a more athleticism Clarkson or Crawford to a Zach LaVine.
But while athleticism offers potential for a player to overperform college production in the NBA, it does not guarantee it. Consider a couple of elite athletes with a high level of draft hype: Andrew Wiggins and Dennis Smith Jr. Neither are precisely like Ivey– Wiggins is bigger with more defensive versatility, but did not show any floor general ability in college. Smith was a small PG, but did show an ability to lead an offense. Let’s see what happens when we take the midpoint of their NCAA production:
Age
PTS
TRB
AST
TOV
STL
BLK
2P%
3PA
FTA
FT%
DSJ
19.1
29
7.3
9.8
5.4
3.1
0.7
0.509
7.6
10
0.715
Wiggins
18.9
30.3
10.4
2.7
4.1
2.1
1.7
0.493
6.4
11.5
0.775
Dandris Smiggins Jr.
19
29.7
8.9
6.3
4.8
2.6
1.2
0.501
7.0
10.8
0.745
Ivey
19.9
33.1
9.3
5.8
5.0
1.7
1.1
0.531
9.5
11.0
0.744
This may seem like an odd comparison, but I was a pre-draft skeptic of both Smith and Wiggins as their flaws seemed to outweigh their athletic strengths. It is interesting that Ivey’s numbers are near identical to the mid-point of their freshmen stats in spite of being a full year older, as he offers a similar intuitive feeling that his warts are too nasty to become a star.
Of course this does not mean that Ivey will necessarily disappoint as badly as these two, as elite athleticism always provides some attainable path to the upside. But there are such few prospects with similar mold and athleticism as Ivey, Smith and Wiggins may have the strongest pre-draft parallels as Ivey essentially hits the exact midpoint of their size, stats, and draft slots.
Now let’s move on from mythical busts to real ones:
Age
PTS
TRB
AST
TOV
STL
BLK
2P%
3PA
FTA
FT%
Ivey
19.9
33.1
9.3
5.8
5.0
1.7
1.1
0.531
9.5
11.0
0.744
Jordan Crawford
20.4
31.1
8.2
5.2
4.5
2.3
0.4
0.494
8.7
6.7
0.765
Markelle Fultz
18.6
35.7
8.8
9.1
4.9
2.5
1.8
0.502
7.8
10.4
0.649
Jerryd Bayless
19.4
34.6
4.9
7.1
5.2
1.7
0.2
0.489
8.5
13.1
0.839
None of these guys are exactly like Ivey. Crawford has shorter wingspan at 6’5.5, much less athleticism, and his career college stats are similar to Ivey’s in spite of staying until a later age. This is why he was available in the late 1st at 27th overall.
But Ivey was only a slightly better college basketball player than Jordan Crawford, and his athleticism only offers the *possibility* that he is much better in the NBA, nothing is guaranteed. If that potential goes unfulfilled, it should not be surprising if he has a similar NBA career to Crawford.
Fultz shared similar dimensions to Ivey and although he was not as explosive, he showed a stronger knack for running an offense and making plays defensively. The big issue with Fultz is that his 64.9% FT proved to be a bigger flag than expected, as his shooting has prevented him from being an effective NBA player.
Ivey shouldn’t struggle as an NBA shooter to the same extent as Fultz, but Fultz was more multidimensional and productive at 15 months younger and went #1 overall for valid reasons. If his shooting disappoints a bit, he could struggle in the NBA to a similar degree as Fultz.
Jerryd Bayless is smaller at 6’3″ with a much shorter wingspan at 6’3.5″, and played smaller with much worse rebound and block rates than Ivey. But he was an excellent athlete in his own rite who showed better shooting and passing than Ivey at 6 months younger. If Bayless and Ivey were in the same draft, it would be difficult decision who to take first. Bayless ultimately provided a disappointing return on 11th overall.
What Does This Amount To?
Ivey is largely a one dimensional scoring combo guard, and this brand tends to be overrated in the draft with significant risk of bust or mediocrity, and a capped upside even when it hits.
What makes him special is his athleticism, giving him an easier path to hitting his upside. But he can still be a meh bench player like Jerryd Bayless, Markelle Fultz, or Jordan Crawford. And even if he turns out a bit better, a microwave scorer off the bench like Jordan Clarkson or Jamal Crawford isn’t exactly what you hope for in the top 5.
And even if he becomes a low end all-star like Zach LaVine, it is debatable how valuable that is as it is a difficult mold to build around. The Bulls did well with Lonzo Ball + Alex Caruso healthy, but have struggled with them injured. If LaVine is battling Nikola Vucevic for 2nd best player on a .500 team, is that really an all-star impact?
For him to surpass LaVine, Ivey needs to develop his passing and/or defense well beyond what he showed at Purdue. And it is difficult to be optimistic, because it is not like he is playing for Kentucky in lineups full of 5* PG’s and bigs. At all times he was surrounded by 3 shooters and 1 elite big, he had the keys to the offense and was in an ideal situation to rack up points and assists. He did well with the former and only OK-ish at the latter.
Defensively, his steal rate isn’t quite up to snuff and Purdue is coming off their worst defensive season in 10 years. In both of his college seasons the defense was significantly better with him off the court, and he seems likely to be a major liability on that end. One major selling point of athleticism is for defensive purposes, but without the size or IQ to capitalize on it, it will not matter all that much.
Ivey turned 20 in February, he is still young with time to develop but old enough for this season to be accepted as his likely true colors.
The one silver lining for him is that his athleticism is so rare, it is difficult to find many fitting comps. Perhaps his NBA projections should be heavily skewed toward the upside because life is easy when you are that athletic. But Zach LaVine upside is not quite enticing enough to heavily gamble on this hypothesis.
Where Does This Leave Him in 2022 Class?
Some people believe that Ivey belongs in the top 3, but given all of his limitations this seems like it would be a critical error. It is too much of a gamble on athleticism without enough meat or versatility in his profile to be worth it.
Outside of the top 3, he still could be the correct pick at #4, it’s not clear. After the top 3 everybody is flawed. This is a horrible year to get the #4 pick, and anybody who lands there should 100% be trying to trade up into the top 3 or down or out of the draft.
There are some guys you could argue above him. Jalen Duren is not quite the athleticism outlier, but because it comes attached to elite height, length, and frame, his physical profile is likely collectively better. If his upside comps are Dwight Howard or Alonzo Mourning vs Zach LaVine, I will take the former all day. Duren is still very young and raw and has all sorts of blah risk of his own, but he does have some case to go higher.
Shaedon Sharpe also has a case to go higher if he stays in the draft. He seems similar to Ivey in a number of ways, but with less information maybe his flaws do not cap his upside as badly. Or maybe the less info is hiding even worse flaws. It’s difficult to say with such limited info.
These are the guys that can be realistically ranked ahead of him. The players that seem slightly more interesting to me but more boring to the typical NBA GM are Mark Williams and Jeremy Sochan. Williams is somewhat limited as a role playing big in a world where nobody cares about bigs anymore, but he seems like such a solid bet to be a useful NBA player with upside to be a Robert Williams or Tyson Chandler. He is currently ranked #21 on ESPN, but should be rising with a strong tourney performance. I would suspect there are decent odds he becomes a better pro than Ivey, but they are so different it is a difficult comparison.
Sochan is also a difficult comparison because he is a one way defensive prospect to counter Ivey’s one way offense. But with his activity and versatilty on defense, and enough handling, passing, and shooting to work with offensively at a young age, the Draymond comparisons do not seem all that insane. And taking Draymond who is one of the most valuable pieces on a dominant championship team over Zach LaVine who is equally valuable to a .500 team should not be anything resembling a debate. Of course Draymond is one of a kind, but it is easy to see Sochan delivering a better pay off than Ivey.
Other than that, Bennedict Mathurin is fairly similar with more shooting and less slashing. Ivey’s slashing should likely be valued higher, but he is likely not too far behind.
If you can trade Ivey for any of these guys and a late 1st to scoop up Trevor Keels, it is an easy yes. Or if you can trade Ivey and a not enormous fee to move up for Paolo Banchero or Jabari Smith, is is an easy do.
I still am not sure exactly where I rank Ivey on my board, it will likely be in #4-7 range. It’s definitely not a mistake to pick him at #4, and it could pay off if he develops well. I just wouldn’t want to be running the team that is investing such a high pick in him, and would absolutely trade out of the pick at #4 overall.
Paolo Banchero is currently rated #3 on ESPN’s latest mock draft. He creates a high volume of offense for himself and his teammates, and is built like a tanky PF at 6’10 250. There is quite a bit to digest with him, so let’s start with some statistical comparisons before moving on to more qualitative analysis.
Because of the tanky PF build, Paolo has drawn comparisons to Blake Griffin, Chris Webber, Julius Randle, and Jabari Parker.
Let’s start out by comparing him to the career NCAA stats per 100 possessions of the two guys that went #1 overall:
Prospect
Age
PTS
TRB
AST
TOV
STL
BLK
2P%
3PA
FTA
FT%
Paolo
19.1
30.7
14.2
5.8
4.5
1.9
1.7
53.3%
6
8.5
72.4%
Blake Griffin
19.4
37.4
23.5
4.2
5.7
2.1
2.0
62.2%
0.3
15.2
58.9%
Chris Webber
19.3
29.5
17.0
4.1
4.9
2.4
4.2
64.1%
3.2
7.2
53.0%
These guys all got buckets and were great passing bigs. But Webber and Blake played more like true bigs. Both were better rebounders than Paolo, Webber was a better shotblocker, Griffin drew far more FTA from bullying in the paint, and both were more dominant scorers in the paint with much higher 2P%.
But Paolo has far more perimeter skill– even though these guys are elite passing bigs, both had a substantially lower assist rate and a higher turnover rate. Paolo is also the better shooter, as both of these guys badly struggled on free throws, and both finished with a lower NBA career FT% than Paolo’s FT% at Duke while never becoming reliable from 3.
So there are some minor parallels in play, but these are not quite right as comparisons.
Now let’s discuss the guys who are more recent and less optimistic:
Prospect
Age
PTS
TRB
AST
TOV
STL
BLK
2P%
3PA
FTA
FT%
Paolo
19.1
30.7
14.2
5.8
4.5
1.9
1.7
53.3%
6
8.5
72.4%
Julius Randle
19.1
29.5
20.5
2.8
5
1
1.5
51.7%
0.9
14.2
70.6%
Jabari Parker
18.8
38.2
17.4
2.3
4.6
2.1
2.5
50.4%
6
12.2
74.8%
Once again, Parker + Randle offered more of a bully ball approach, grabbing more rebounds and getting to the line more often. Unlike Webber + Griffin, they at least made similar FT% to Paolo. But they get absolutely destroyed in assist and assist:TOV rates, and Randle’s steals are anemic compared to Paolo.
Jabari Parker failed because he had all time bad defensive IQ, and there was a clear signal that his basketball IQ was limited given his assist:TOV rate. This also showed up with his offensive approach in summer league, where he played a horribly inefficient style. I ranked him 8th on my final 2014 board, and am not surprised that he disappointed as badly as he did.
Randle showed a number of similar flaws to Parker. His instincts were slow on both ends at Kentucky, and I was not particularly high on him entering the draft. To his credit, he developed his perimeter skills, became a good passer, and stretched his shooting out to NBA 3 point range, and is now a decent NBA player. Perhaps I underrated him by putting him 22nd on my big board. Or given that he maxed his abilities out and still is largely unwanted by NBA teams, perhaps that was an accurate rating.
Randle and Parker have some parallels to Paolo, but they seem fairly pessimistic because at the same age they showed major weaknesses where he is strong.
Because he plays like a big wing, let’s compare Paolo to other big wings who went in the front end of the lottery who are good shot creators and passers with an acceptable FT%. Let’s start with a Duke flavor, since Coach K has been recruiting big wings with versatile perimeter skill for decades:
Age
PTS
TRB
AST
TOV
STL
BLK
2P%
3PA
FTA
FT%
Paolo Banchero
19.1
30.7
14.2
5.8
4.5
1.9
1.7
0.533
6
8.5
0.724
Jayson Tatum
18.8
28.9
12.6
3.7
4.5
2.3
2
0.504
6.9
8.2
0.849
Luol Deng
18.7
28.7
13.1
3.5
4.3
2.5
2.1
0.515
5.8
7.1
0.71
Grant Hill
19.2
26.6
10.7
5.7
4.3
3.1
1.9
0.573
0.3
7.9
0.695
Note that Grant Hill’s #’s are over his first 3 NCAA seasons, since that sample is both large and most closely approximates Paolo’s age.
This is a fairly optimistic trio, so let’s clarify why other past Dukies weren’t chosen: Danny Ferry only averaged 5.9 pts/game at age 19, Elton Brand was a true big, Carlos Boozer was a slow big and slid to round 2, Mike Dunleavy Jr. only scored 9.1 pts/game at Paolo’s age, Shane Battier more defense oriented, Marvin Bagley had a bad assist:TOV ratio, RJ Barrett too short, Brandon Ingram too skinny, and Wendell Carter Jr. had some parallels, but is ultimately a slow big.
That leaves these three Blue Devils as most similar, and by the #’s it does not look like Paolo clearly stands behind any of them. Tatum has a clearly significant advantage in shooting with his FT%, and he had a slightly better steal rate and is likely more mobile. So it may be too much to ask Paolo to be a star like Tatum. But given his superior passing, if his shooting improves over time and he turns out to be not far behind Tatum defensively, he can make a similar impact as a top 10 superstar.
Grant Hill is a fascinating comparison because he is a rare big wing that has similar assist and turnover rates as Paolo. Hill’s vastly superior steal rate implies that Paolo will not be able to match his perimeter defense as Hill was clearly the better athlete, but Hill never became a 3 point shooter. If Paolo develops an NBA 3 and becomes a modern day Grant Hill who trades some athleticism + defense for shooting, he would be fairly exciting to build around.
Luol Deng is not exactly the type of guy you target at #1 overall, as he does not stand out from Paolo in any way outside of a few ticks in steal rate, and Paolo unsurprisingly has the better passing. This is why Deng went #7 overall and Paolo is a near lock for the top 3. But if you stack Luol Deng’s career numbers up against 30 #1 picks from 1985 to 2014, he ranks 12th in career win shares (likely to be passed by Kyrie Irving and finish 13th) and 13th in VORP (already passed by Kyrie). He was a two time all-star and gave a truckload of quality minutes to the Bulls.
Even though Deng is a relatively disappointing outcome compared to a Grant Hill or Jayson Tatum, he is nevertheless an approximately average outcome for #1 overall. This is not so disappointing after all.
Now let’s get out of the Duke family and discuss who else could be similar to Paolo:
Age
PTS
TRB
AST
TOV
STL
BLK
2P%
3PA
FTA
FT%
Paolo Banchero
19.1
30.7
14.2
5.8
4.5
1.9
1.7
0.533
6
8.5
0.724
Carmelo Anthony
18.6
34.4
15.5
3.4
3.4
2.4
1.3
0.496
7.3
10.6
0.706
Lamar Odom
19.2
29.5
15.8
6.4
5.7
1.5
2.6
0.5
5.3
9.5
0.7
Tobias Harris
18.5
31.3
14.8
2.6
3.7
1.4
1.7
0.497
4.6
10.2
0.753
Josh Jackson
19.9
29.8
13.4
5.4
5.0
3.1
1.9
0.549
4.7
9.0
0.566
Carmelo was 6 months younger than Paolo as a freshman, but there is not much to suggest that Paolo is significantly behind him. Melo was better at getting off a higher volume of shots without turning it over, and Paolo is (unsurprisingly) the better passer.
Interestingly, they rate similarly as shooters at a similar age. Melo was more confident in his 3 with a higher 3PA rate (which is an even bigger gap considering that 3PA rate is up 17.7% from Melo’s college season) and he went on to shoot 77.7% FT as an NBA rookie. Melo does get the edge as a shooter, but Paolo is not too far behind at the same age and it is plausible that he peaks as a similar caliber NBA shooter.
Defense is the area where Paolo has a clear opportunity to outshine Melo. Melo’s college steal and rebound rates indicate that he is physically capable of defense, but due to some combination of apathy and bad awareness he was a liability on defense in the NBA. Even if Paolo is a bit slower, being better defensively than Carmelo is a low bar to clear. If he becomes something like Carmelo with better D, that’s a great return on #1 overall.
Lamar Odom is the closest comp who is the same height as Paolo at 6’10 and not an explosive athlete. Odom has an even higher assist rate, but slightly worse assist:TOV. He has a longer wingspan than Paolo as well at 7’4 vs 7’0, but in spite of this Paolo had a slightly higher steal rate. Perhaps he can use his vision and instincts to be a versatile NBA defensive player like Odom.
What is further interesting about Odom is that he had a productive NBA career without developing his shooting with 31.2% 3P 69.3% FT for his career.
Tobias Harris is another low end outcome for Paolo, where he could end up falling a bit flat but still not be a productive NBA player.
Josh Jackson is not all that similar to Paolo, as his slight frame and busted shot for an old freshman 9 months older than Paolo made him somewhat weird. But he was athletic and overall productive, and is the best example of a top 5 wing with good college passing busting in the NBA.
How Big is Too Big?
Now we just compared Paolo’s game and numbers to a wide range of past guys, but somewhat glazed over how much bigger he is than any of them. Let’s do a quick comparison to see how he measures up:
Prospect
Height
Weight
Wing
Paolo
6’10
250
7′
Julius Randle
6’9
250
7′
Carmelo
6’7.5
233
7′
Grant Hill
6’8
225
?
Tobias Harris
6’8
223
6’11
Luol Deng
6’8
220
7’0.5
Lamar Odom
6’10
220
7’4
Jayson Tatum
6’8
205
6’11
This makes the Randle comparisons somewhat understandable, as that is the player that Paolo most closely resembles physically.
It seems that the disconnect between the numbers and perception is his thickness. And it makes some sense– most bulky guys are not particularly quick or good defensively in the NBA, so perhaps we should place a pessimistic skew on Paolo.
And perhaps we should. It would not be shocking if he did end up as a Randle type who offers a bit of everything on offense, but does not have the shooting or efficiency to overcome his defensive flaws and on net be an impact player.
But at the same time, should we give his beef too much attention? Carmelo Anthony offered a ton of offensive value, and Paolo is not all that much thicker than him. The extra 2+ inches of height should be helpful for seeing, passing, and shooting over the defense, so there is no reason to assume that Paolo cannot make a similar offensive impact.
Luka Doncic is a 6’7 230 Arnold Palmer guzzler, yet is on the verge of finishing top 6 in MVP voting for the third time in spite of having just turned 23 due to his monstrous offensive output.
Draymond Green measured 6’7.5 235 pounds at the combine and Metta World Peace was listed 6’6 244 in college at St. John’s. Both guys won NBA defensive player of the year. Paolo is not on their level defensively, but he does not need to be DPOY to justify #1– he merely needs to be adequate on this end.
Not many people fretted over fellow Blue Devil Zion Williamson’s girth when he went #1 overall, but at 6’7 285 he makes Paolo look anorexic. Of course Zion’s thickness (in tandem with questionable work ethic) seems to be his undoing, but he was productive when he was on the floor for the Pelicans.
Banchero may not be the most agile or explosive guy in the draft, but he is a decent enough athlete and may be getting wrongfully pigeonholed for his bigness given all of the perimeter production he has provided for Duke.
It’s incredibly rare for somebody of his size to offer this much perimeter output, so perhaps the first assumption should be that Paolo is a rare super sized wing prospect rather than a dime a dozen archaic PF.
Being big and strong is typically an advantage, so it seems wrong to treat it as a negative when a tanky 6’10 guy plays like a star wing.
How Does Paolo Compare Athletically?
Even though some of these comparisons are smaller, most of them are not notably more athletic. Almost all of the aforementioned comparisons fall under the “more fluid than explosive” type of athlete much like Paolo.
The most explosive guy was Grant Hill, and even with Hill it is not clear that his athleticism is his most scarce quality, as his passing for his size seems more outlier. And he needed to be more explosive than the rest of this group since he never developed a reliable 3 point shot.
But let’s humor the idea that Paolo’s size is a reason to place a slight pessimistic bias on his athleticism, and suppose that in terms of explosiveness, this is how the group rates among NBA wings in percentile terms:
Hill 85th percentile Carmelo 60th percentile Tatum 50th percentile Paolo 40th percentile
But Paolo is 2″ taller and stronger. Is this really such a notable physical disadvantage such that these comparisons are nullified?
It is hard to see that as a reasonable argument. Paolo has 38 dunks so far this season. Most of these prospects played before dunk stats became available, but that is almost as many as Tatum (18) and Tobias Harris (21) had combined as NCAA freshmen.
An Unexpected Big Comp
If people are going to compare Paolo Banchero to bigs who he has little in common with such as Blake Griffin and Chris Webber, we may as well compare him to a big who he has a few things in common with in Nikola Jokic:
Age
PTS
TRB
AST
TOV
STL
BLK
2P%
3PA
FTA
FT%
Paolo Banchero
19.1
30.7
14.2
5.8
4.5
1.9
1.7
0.533
6
8.5
0.724
Nikola Jokic
18.9
24.6
13.7
5.2
3.4
1.9
1.8
0.638
6.2
3.6
0.656
Adriatic League and ACC are not an apples to apples comparison, but they are close enough such that I am not sure which one is more difficult. Jokic was more efficient than Paolo, but Paolo is more athletic and played a bigger offensive role than Jokic.
This is not an apples to apples stylistic comparison either, as Jokic is 1″ taller, 3″ longer, and plays like a true center. But enough statistical parallels are there for this to be a friendly reminder to not sleep on elite passing teenage bigs with non-broken shots.
But the parallels are clear. The intersection of height and passing is a great indicator of sneaky upside, and Paolo got even more assists than the GOAT passing big while only being 1″ shorter and more athletic.
And even though Paolo is unlikely to match Jokic’s NBA shooting, sometimes guys make major shooting leaps from their 18/19 year old selves. Having a non-broken shot at that age gives you a chance of that happening, and when they come attached to elite playmaking ability it can yield massive draft wins.
While Paolo will not play the same defensive role as Jokic, who could have seen Jokic posting a season where he deserves DPOY consideration like he has this season? There is a significant correlation between height and defense as well as passing and defense, so guys who have both often overachieve. Paolo is not that much smaller than Jokic, and he is more athletic, so he has outs to be a great defensive player in his own rite.
While they are different stylistically, there are a number of parallels in statistical output of Jokic and Paolo. If nothing else Jokic serves as a friendly reminder to sleep on young, tall, elite passers with non-broken shots at your own peril.
What Does This Amount to in the NBA?
Like most prospects, Paolo’s NBA career will have swing based on how well his shooting and defense develop. Both are on the fence of potentially becoming good vs. being a long term liability.
He could be a sieve like Julius Randle or Carmelo Anthony, or he could be a perennially + defensive player like Lamar Odom or Luol Deng.
He could be a limited jump shooter like Odom or Randle, or he could be a good one like Nikola Jokic, Tobias Harris, or Carmelo Anthony.
What is clear is that he offers a rare level of creation ability for a player of his size between his scoring and passing. The intersection of height and passing is an upside indicator that goes often overlooked by most observers, and offers sneaky upside on both sides of the ball.
If his shooting and defense see favorable outcomes, he could be a hall of fame level superstar like Jayson Tatum, Grant Hill, or Carmelo Anthony.
If they hit middling outcomes, he will still likely be a quality player in the vein of Luol Deng, Lamar Odom, or Tobias Harris.
And if they hit low end outcomes, he could be a productive but not particularly coveted NBA player like Julius Randle. Perhaps in the absolute worst case outcome he could outright bust like Jabari Parker, but it seems very unlikely unless he has major off court issues.
If anything he seems more likely to become an MVP candidate at some point than bust like Jabari. Carmelo Anthony and Grant Hill both finished third in MVP voting once, and Jayson Tatum will likely finish top 5 in MVP voting at some point. Two of these guys even went to the same school as him, and all three of them went #3 overall which is incidentally where Paolo is projected to go this season.
So if 3 exciting comps exist vs 1 terrifying Jabari comp, why is everybody so much more worried about the latter?
What about all of the other busts in draft history?
It may seem like cherrypicking to focus on the good outcomes and dismiss the few bad ones. But let’s look at the biggest busts for tweener forwards taken in the top 3.
From 1985 to 2014 there were 7 such players who finished with < 20 career win shares and have pre-draft stats (Darius Miles is the exception who declared from high school). Let’s look at their assist:TOV ratio in their final pre-draft season:
Prospect
AST
TOV
A:TO
Adam Morrison
2.8
3.8
0.74
Anthony Bennett
2.1
4.0
0.53
Jabari Parker
2.3
4.6
0.51
Derrick Williams
2.3
5.2
0.43
Michael Beasley
2.1
5.2
0.40
Len Bias
1.8
4.8
0.37
Andrea Bargnani
1.3
4.1
0.31
Len Bias may be an unfair example since he died of a cocaine overdose and never played in the NBA. But this group includes some all time bad basketball IQ’s, and dying of a drug overdose suggests poor off court intelligence. Perhaps he would have busted in the NBA had he lived to have a normal career.
Further, if we look at the guys who had the lowest WS/48 among guys with 20+ win shares (basically the least efficient guys who produced enough to get regular minutes), they are past #1 overall picks Glenn Robinson (0.47 A:TO) and Andrew Wiggins (0.68)– both fairly significant mistakes to take with the top pick.
Having a bad assist to turnover ratio implies some combination of limited ball skills and limited basketball IQ that is almost a pre-requisite for a big, talented wing to flop. If we include #4 overall picks, we get Josh Jackson as an example of more assists than turnovers who busted, so it’s not a completely infallible mold. But he was also a worse prospect than Paolo due to his busted shot, thin frame, and old age for his class, which is why he did not go in the top 3.
Draft history is still a small sample, and anybody can bust if their development goes poorly enough. But there is not a bust comp that resonates as truly scary for Paolo at this time. Josh Jackson and Jabari Parker are the closest we can get, and he is clearly better than both based on pre-draft.
Where Does This Place Paolo in 2022?
Paolo is obviously a good prospect that belongs in the top 3, but Chet Holmgren and Jabari Smith are also very talented. So how do we rank him within the scope of this year’s top 3?
The current narrative in ESPN’s latest mock is that Paolo has slipped to #3 because his defensive intensity and awareness is weaker than that of Jabari Smith and Chet Holmgren, who fit stronger two way molds.
But is it reasonable to rate Chet or Jabari as better offensive prospects than Paolo?
Jabari is obviously the better shooter, but he is limited outside of shooting. Notably, he is making 43.5% inside the arc, which is downright pathetic for a 6’10 prospect projected in the top 3. His main issue is that he struggles to create rim attempts, with just 65 of his 239 2PA (27.2%) coming at the rim. Banchero is known to take a high volume of mid-range attempts as well, but he balances this out by regularly getting to the rim where 194 of his 353 2PA (55%) have come. And even though Paolo has taken a far higher volume of rim attempts, he still converts more than Smith at 63.9% vs 61.5%.
People like to assume that Paolo is the worse athlete because he is thicker than Jabari, but in terms of performance, Jabari has shown the much bigger flags relative to lack of athletic pop. Paolo also dunks significantly more often with 38 vs 14 on the season.
Smith Comps?
Both guys have Jayson Tatum as a statistical comparison, but Paolo is the guy where it is easier to buy it as the superior athlete and creator. Smith is leaning heavily on his outside shooting to overcome his lack of first step and creation off the dribble, and the most realistic comps are 6’10 Klay Thompson, Rashard Lewis, Khris Middleton, Danny Granger, Brandon Ingram, and Harrison Barnes. But where is the top 10 fringe MVP candidate upside?
Michael Porter Jr. is a common comparison, as he shares Smith’s dimensions and elite shooting. If you trade MPJ’s interior scoring for Jabari’s better health and defense, they could be of similar value. But MPJ is still developing, who knows whether he justifies his max contract extension for Denver or not. Kevin Durant has 5″ more wingspan (7’5 vs 7’0) and is more athletic, and does not seem realistic or Smith. Dirk Nowitzki is 2″ taller and frankly may be more athletic than Smith as well.
Smith is 6 months younger than Banchero and could blaze his own trail to stardom, but offensive stardom is normally built around an elite creation package where the shooting catches up over time, not the converse. Paolo fits a more traditional NBA star mold, which is why it is so much easier to comp him to past greats.
Given that Paolo likely has an easier path to offensive greatness, it would require high confidence in Smith’s defensive superiority to value him higher. He moves his feet better on the perimeter and it makes sense to give him the edge, but he is not necessarily a stopper nor is Paolo a sieve. Defense is random and difficult to predict, and there does not seem to be a glaring discrepancy between the two defensively like there is in terms of offensive upside.
Smith has a great chance of being a fringe all-star who is useful in any NBA lineup, similar to Klay, Lewis, Middleton, and Granger. His bad outcomes may even be more useful than Paolo’s bad ones– it is difficult to see him being worse than Harrison Barnes, who fits a more useful role than Julius Randle.
But most of the value comes in that star upside, which is quite a bit easier to see in Paolo.
What About Chet?
As elite and productive Chet is statistically, it is impossible to come up with a realistic NBA comp for him because nobody has ever had his physical deficiencies besides Aleksej Pokusevski. Poku has made big strides this year and is rapidly trending toward replacement level player, but his longterm upside is still looking bleak.
Evan Mobley is similar statistically, but he is stronger, more athletic, and did not shrivel up and die offensively when he faced high level athleticism. How did Mobley slide to #3 last year when an emaciated version of himself is projected at #1 this year?
It is ridiculous to fret over Paolo being slightly too thick when plenty of thick players have thrived in all different NBA roles, when relatively Chet is far more skinny than anybody who has had significant pro success, with underwhelming athleticism to boot.
Chet is still a great player and should be valued highly as a prospect since there has never been anybody this good with his flaws to compare to. But it is difficult to see how he should be picked over the guys who are similarly talented and fit more proven NBA molds.
This is an excellent top 3, and one of the most difficult decisions to be made at #1 possibly in draft history. But if we are going to filter it down by who can be compared to the highest tier of past NBA players, we are left with a clear pecking order of:
Paolo
Jabari
Chet
And this is how I would rank the top of the 2022 NBA draft.
Here are some preliminary ideas and food for thought, as we still have more info to come and personally I have not watched much film and most of my thoughts are still developing.
At a glance, this draft seems suboptimal to have hot takes, because the big 3 of Chet Holmgren, Paolo Banchero, and Jabari Smith seems to be the correct top 3, and then the draft is dreadfully thin after that. Let’s start by dissecting the top 3.
Chet Holmgren is currently slated at #1 overall, but a quick statistical comparison with a prospect available in round 2 throws cold water on the idea that he is the correct choice:
In this case, Chet is Prospect A and Zach Edey is Prospect B, currently slated to go #46 overall at ESPN. Edey is actually 2 weeks younger than Holmgren in spite of being a class higher, and it’s somewhat remarkable that he is rated so much lower.
It is perfectly reasonable to rate Chet higher, as he is the better shooter and shotblocker, and in theory should be quicker as Edey’s huge 7’4 285 pound frame does not typically lend itself to chasing guards around the perimeter.
Chet’s Red Flags
But Chet has concerns of his own, with an outlier poor frame being listed at 7′ 195 pounds. The most physically similar player is Aleksej Pokusevski listed at 7’0 190 pounds, who has not remotely played like an NBA 1st round draft pick through his first 1.5 seasons.
Evan Mobley’s success may inspire Chet’s confidence, but Mobley was listed 20 pounds heavier at 215. Kevin Durant could not bench press any reps at the combine, but he was listed at 204 pounds in college in spite of being 3″ shorter and 1 year 5 months younger than Chet as a freshman. Kevin Garnett (6’11 217) and Chris Bosh (6’10 210) are also examples of skinny bigs who were clearly beefier than Chet.
While there have been plenty of skinny bigs who have succeeded in the NBA, none have been as skinny as Chet and all of them have been significantly more athletic to boot. His physical tools are a major concern that cannot be overlooked.
Further, is he really quick enough to chase guards on the perimeter? Steal rate is far from a perfect measurement of perimeter defense, but it is correlated and he has posted a paltry 1.1% thus far. This is for a Gonzaga team that does not suppress steals against a mid-major schedule. This is how he compares to other recent Gonzaga bigs:
Player
Stl%
Brandon Clarke
2.3
Killian Tillie
2.3
Kelly Olynyk
1.8
Rui Hachimura
1.7
Johnathan Williams
1.5
Zach Collins
1.5
Domantas Sabonis
1.2
Przemek Karnowski
1.1
Drew Timme
1.1
Chet Holmgren
1.1
He is stuck at the bottom, which does not doom him for NBA success and still could easily improve with a flurry of steals. But this is further worrisome for a player who already has significant physical flags. If he can be beaten on the perimeter and bullied down low, how much value can he really provide defensively in spite of his rim protection ability?
His saving grace is his 7’6 wingspan that he uses to block shots at an excellent rate. Although it is worth wondering why he can’t use that monster length to reach into the passing lanes and generate more steals.
Further exacerbating worries is that Gonzaga has largely been beating up mid-major competition. They did schedule 5 non-conference games vs elite high major competition, and Chet’s offensive production fell off a cliff in those games.
Granted, this is a small sample size it and it is far from a death knell. But for a guy with frightening physical flaws, it is somewhat scary to overinvest in his domination of mid-major competition when his offense shriveled up against high major defenses.
For a quick comparison– kenpom splits stats vs. games against top 50 teams. In Chet’s case, this would be the 5 high major games plus a road game at #72 Santa Clara. In this splits, his offense drops from 21.6 usg 128 ORtg 11.5% ast to 18.5 usg, 108 ORtg, 6.2% ast.
If you want to compare it to Mobley, he saw essentially no drop from his 33 game sample of 23.6% usg 119.4 ORtg 14.2% ast to 23.6% usg 119 ORtg 13.1% ast in a 17 game sample against Tier A teams.
Between the splits and physical tools, it is dangerous to group Chet and Mobley too loosely. They are a similar mold at a similar age and both dominated college basketball, with Chet actually posting a higher freshman BPM at 15.6 (thus far) vs 13.7. But he also has more significant warts, which gives him both lower upside and a more significant downside than Mobley.
Holmgren’s overall production is too good to get too low on him because of his flaws. He is long, intelligent, skilled, and efficient, and has clear potential to be a highly useful NBA player. But it is a strange double standard that his weirdness is not adding any negative skew to his draft hype, whereas it is tanking Edey’s stock to the dirt.
Back to Zach
It does make sense that if you have two elite bigs with similar production, the better shooting big that fits a more modern profile in Holmgren should trade over the jumbo big in Edey that seems to be going extinct.
There should be some concern that Edey is merely another Boban Marjanovic, who can post excellent box score stats but is too slow to hang defensively and is ultimately a sparsely used bench player.
He is slow footed and does struggle when matched up with opposing guards, but on the plus side is exceptionally coordinated for his size. Odds are he will be a liability to defend in space in the NBA, but if he is surprisingly passable he can be a big time steal.
He has the same steal rate as Chet this year at 1.1%, but it drops to 0.9% if you include his 18 year old freshman sample. Edey is likely the greater liability on perimeter D, but it is not a lock that he is worse as there are reasons to be concerned about Chet defending in space as well.
Holmgren’s clearest edge is in shooting, as he makes 74% FT vs 67% and attempts 4.9 threes per 40, making 46.8% thus far (which is likely small sample variance). He is a clear favorite to be better here, but again not a lock, as Edey’s FT shooting shows enough competence such that he may develop a 3 point shot in time, and Chet seems like a decent but not great shooter based on 3PA rate and FT%.
Chet’s advantages in shooting, rim protection, and mobility all are fairly important for a modern big, and make it more likely that he can fit into a modern NBA lineup. Edey’s advantages are in areas that are less valued in the modern NBA, such as post offense, post defense, and rebounding (especially offensively). So it makes sense to value Chet higher, as elite production can only be valuable if it fits into an NBA lineup. Even if he loses a bit of value in translation and becomes a Myles Turner, that still beats a Boban who is better at filling up the box score.
But the tricky point is that Chet’s advantages are all small to medium, whereas Edey has some major edges. His offensive rebound rate is more than double that of Chet (19.1% vs 8.2%), and he is the best low post scorer in the history of college basketball. Let’s compare to some past players (per 100 possessions):
Prospect
Age
2P
2PA
2P%
Zach Edey
19.6
18.9
27.0
70.2%
Shaq
18.8
16.9
27.2
62.8%
Blake Griffin
19.8
15.3
23.3
65.9%
Zion Williamson
18.5
15.0
20.1
74.7%
Jahlil Okafor
19
14.8
22.3
66.4%
Deandre Ayton
19.4
13.1
20.7
63.5%
Joel Embiid
19.8
9.6
15.0
63.9%
Chet Holmgren
19.7
7.8
10.4
75.0%
Shaq was the only one who matched Edey’s volume but had a significantly lower %. He did so at a younger age, but then slightly regressed his next season before heading to the NBA. Zion was the only player more efficient on a reasonably high volume, but he had lower volume and wasn’t really a post scorer.
Then Chet is included to show his excellent efficiency, but his volume is highly underwhelming, especially for a guy whose success has come almost entirely against mid majors.
Obviously Edey is nowhere near as athletic as Shaq or Griffin or Ayton, but he still gets the job done incredibly well. At a certain point it is worth exploring what would happen if you build an NBA offense around him. Even if he struggles to keep up with NBA players in terms of speed, they may struggle even more to slow down his interior scoring.
Edey provides a unique value proposition, and it is difficult to pinpoint exactly where he belongs in the draft. He may be a more awkward fit into NBA lineups than Chet, but he also has more unicorn upside that is worth exploring once the draft board starts to look weak, as it does fairly early this season.
Where Do These Guys Fit Into 2022?
It’s difficult to say because both are so weird, but let’s start with the clearer points that feel less hot take-y.
Paolo Banchero and Jabari Smith are not generational talents, but they are both solid top 2 candidates who would be considered as options at #1 in any draft without a generational talent ahead of them. Paolo is more of a traditional superstar and could be a taller Jayson Tatum or Carmelo Anthony with better defense. He is a surprisingly good passer for such a big and athletic scorer, which makes it unlikely he flops as hard as his fellow Dukie Jabari Parker. He likely has some more boring outcomes like Tobias Harris in his range, but overall he is a fairly comfortable choice at either #1 or #2.
Jabari Smith Jr. is an easier fit into a variety of lineups, as he is an excellent shooter for a 6’10 wing who has more assists than TOVs and a 2.7% steal rate which suggests he can defend the perimeter. He has a few weird hitches in his profile such as an underwhelming 46.6% 2P and 2.8% OREB rate, and he does not have Paolo’s athleticism or traditional star mold. But he can be a player coveted by all NBA teams as a supersized super role playing wing.
Both are perfectly reasonable choices at #1 overall. Right now there is no clear answer. Gun to my head, I would lean toward Paolo as he does not have any funky flaws to fret over, but that may change with more information and a deeper dive into the film.
It is difficult to see how it would be correct to draft Chet over either of these guys, since he has so much weirdness weighing him down whereas the other two guys do not by either traditional scouting or analytics.
Right now, it would seem the safe place to rank Chet would be #3, since his weirdness is concerning, but is difficult to say it is enough to bump him out of the big 3 without much strength in the draft behind him.
If we want to have a hot take that may prove to be fruitful or disastrous in the future, Shaedon Sharpe and Jaden Ivey could both be considered above Chet.
Sharpe is particularly interesting, because he was #1 RSCI in this year’s high school class before reclassifying to Kentucky, and is now somehow 7th on ESPN’s current board in spite of the draft turning anemic after the top 3. #1 RSCI’s bust reasonably often, but they also become stars at a decent rate as well. He has a 7’0 wingspan, and is an athletic finisher with a smooth looking stroke, and could easily be the best player in the class.
He is a bit old for his high school class, being only 2 weeks younger than Jabari Smith, so he also could bust completely. But outside of the top 3, there will be loads of busts and boring outcomes so why not roll the dice on him at #4? Hopefully he starts to play for Kentucky to give a clearer image of what he brings to the table.
The only other reasonable choice at #4 is Jaden Ivey who is fairly similar to Sharpe as a long and athletic SG with a nice outside stroke. His wingspan is not quite as long at 6’10, but he is only 3.5 months older and has more proven production at the NCAA level, so it is reasonable to consider him above Sharpe.
These two are somewhat enigmatic because they could be similar to Donovan Mitchell or they could bust completely. Which is why it feels hot takey to rate them above Chet– their upside is a bit sexier but it can look really dumb if he has a highly useful NBA career and they do not.
After those guys, the draft starts to become truly tragic. Prospects that I would look at in the mid-late lottery include Jalen Duren, Kendall Brown, Trevor Keels, Mark Williams, Dyson Daniels, Keegan Murray, Bennedict Mathurin, TyTy Washington, Kennedy Chandler, Tari Eason, and Walker Kessler.
Jalen Duren has been fairly boring as a freshman, but he is toolsy and only turned 18 in November. His top 2 kenpom comps are Derrick Favors and Andre Drummond, which is something. He likely belongs in the top 10 by default with such thin options on the board.
Kendall Brown fits a nice archetype as a role playing wing at 6’8 with good athleticism, but his offense is a bit too limited to get too excited.
Trevor Keels is fairly boring as an undersized SG with limited athleticism. But he is super young and offers a bit of everything. Pesky perimeter defense, decent enough PG skills, good basketball IQ to limit mistakes, and a passable jump shot that has plenty of time to improve as he does not 19 until after the draft in August. His boringness may cause him to be underrated, but his well roundedness and youth make him an option worth considering in the top 10.
Dyson Daniels is in a similar boat, as he is not particularly athletic or dynamic at scoring, but does a bit of everything as a 6’6″ SG. While he does not share their athleticism, he has been a more productive player for G League Ignite than both Jalen Green and Jonathan Kuminga, and in a weak draft is a reasonable choice in the top 10.
Mark Williams is a nice big man prospect, as he has a monstrous 7’7 wingspan and is fluid, efficient, and a good well rounded basketball player. He is currently projected at #23 overall, and reminisces of past draft steals in the 20’s such as Robert Williams and Clint Capela. So it likely would be a mistake to let him slide to the 20’s in such a poor draft, as he seems to be a clear lottery value.
Bennedict Mathurin is a somewhat boring spot up SG, but he’s decent enough to deserve lotto consideration in this dumpster fire of a draft.
Keegan Murray is a highly productive weirdo. His stats are excellent across the board, but he does not eye test on par with his stats as he is somewhat slow and unathletic, and his defense is not as good as his steal, block, and rebound rates imply. Iowa has had a number of prospects post excellent college statistics without being useful NBA players, such as Luka Garza, Aaron White, and Jarrod Uthoff, because they recruit non-toolsy guys meant to perform as 4 year college players and not be future pros. Murray is clearly the best of the bunch, and he is so productive he deserves lottery consideration. But he also should be valued lower than his #’s to some extent, and it is difficult to place him. He could be a Robert Covington-esque role player that is very useful. I’ll probably stash him somewhere in the lottery and call it a day, but I am currently unsure exactly where to rate him.
TyTy Washington is a sophomore aged freshman who is an incredibly boring mold of undersized SG. But John Calipari has a habit of making future NBA stars seem boring in college, and he is fairly similar to Tyrese Maxey who was underdrafted by the NBA and underrated by myself, so perhaps his top 10 hype will prove to be justified after all.
Tari Eason is a fairly interesting sleeper currently slotted for round 2 at #34 in ESPN’s draft. For a 6’8 wing, he offers a compelling intersection of ability to create his own shot at the rim and make plays on defense, with excellent 3.8% stl 6.0% blk rates. His 71% career FT implies competent shooting, but his 28.4% 3 on somewhat low volume makes his ability to make NBA 3’s look somewhat dicey for a prospect who will be 21 on draft night. He also averages 1.1 assists vs 2.0 turnovers and has a disappointing 6’9 wingspan for a 6’8 prospect, so there are plenty of flags to temper enthusiasm. He has weirdo upside but it is easy to see why NBA teams may be skeptical of drafting him too soon.
Kennedy Chandler is an athletic PG who can get to the rim, create for others, and play pesky perimeter defense with an excellent 4.4% steal rate. But his shooting and efficiency leave quite a bit to be desired for a 6’0 PG, and he rebounds like his size with an anemic free throw rate.
Walker Kessler is a fascinating weirdo. He has an insane block rate, the highest of any NCAA player averaging 12+ minutes per game dating back to 09-10 when it was first tracked. He has also has an excellent steal rate for a big, a hyperefficient 73.7% 2P, a vaguely competent outside shot, and a monster 14.8 BPM which is not too far behind Holmgren or Edey while being just ~9.5 months older. He does not score with great volume and has an anemic free throw rate for his size, but anybody with such monstrous statistical peaks is going to deserve a closer analysis once the draft approaches.
So where does Zach Edey fit in? It’s tough to say. These guys are all more traditional NBA archetypes, but they are all fairly boring. At what point do you pull the trigger on a guy who may make low post scoring relevant in the NBA once again, instead of aiming for a useful role player who likely has limited upside? There’s not a clear answer. It is not completely insane to rank all of these guys ahead of him, but it is insane to rank them and 29 additional guys above Edey as ESPN currently does.
Who is overhyped this year?
Now that we have addressed the players who have shown some level of appeal, let’s now discuss the gratuitous list of guys who have not.
Johnny Davis, ESPN rank: 8th
Davis is in the midst of an excellent season for Wisconsin as he has been their go to scorer for a team with limited offensive talent. He is fairly well rounded too, he rebounds well for a guard, he avoids turnovers, and he is capable of making plays defensively.
But at 6’5 with mediocre length and athleticism, he has an underwhelming physical profile for an underwhelming NBA mold. His top 3 kenpom comps are Alec Burks, James Bouknight, and Jarrett Culver, all lotto picks with collectively underwhelming results. It’s likely safe to call Culver a bust, Bouknight is still early but appears to be on the fast track to busting, and Burks had an acceptable career as a journeyman but isn’t exactly what you hope for in the lottery.
So how much can we realistically expect from Davis? He does enough to have a decent enough career like Burks, but he could also bust. And how much upside is there to be better than Burks when he seems to have a bit less length and athleticism? His main value seems to come from making pullup mid-range jumpers, which is useful on a college team with no other scoring options but for a player with his physical tools in the NBA seems like a limited calling card.
He is still productive enough such that he isn’t that overrated and I would likely rate him in the 15-20 range. But there are more attractive value propositions inside the top 10.
AJ Griffin, ESPN: 11th
Griffin is young and toolsy with a 7’0 wingspan and doesn’t turn 19 until August one day before his fellow Blue Devil Keels. But his problem is that he just isn’t that good at basketball right now.
At a glance his 50% 3P is attractive. But his shooting form does not look all that inspiring, and with a 70% FT it likely is a product of small sample variance.
Offensive he does avoid turnovers well, but he also creates a low volume of offense and is strictly a role player at this stage. And his anemic 1.4% steal rate calls into question whether he can parlay his physical tools into NBA production.
Based on youth, tools, and RSCI he still likely belongs in the top 20, but lottery is a bit much considering how little he brings to the table at this stage. He somewhat reminisces of Tony Snell, who also had a disappointing steal rate for a 7′ wingspan and was mainly a spot up shooter in college.
Snell has kicked around the NBA for 8 years and Griffin’s youth gives him upside to be better, but his common outcomes seem a bit too boring to justify the lottery hype.
Ochai Agbaji, ESPN: 12th
This is the highest rated prospect who simply has no business going in round 1. He is 6’5 with a 6’10 wingspan, and offers little in terms of basketball playing ability other than outside shooting where he is making 46.4% from 3 for the season.
But the issue is that this seems to be almost entirely variacne based, as he has a mediocre 69.6% FT to support it and just 68.9% FT for his NCAA career.
He can create his own shot at the rim in doses, but not so much for a SG who turns 22 in April and is not much of a passer or defensive playmaker. Perhaps he finds a niche as a role playing bench SG, but it is difficult to see how somebody with such few strengths and so many weaknesses belongs in round 1, let alone the lottery.
Marjon Beauchamp, ESPN: 14th
Beauchamp fits a nice 3 + D mold as a 6’7 wing, but he isn’t that good for a guy who is already 21 years old.
He showed promise as a shooter last season for his community college team, making 39.8% 3P on 8.6 3PA/game and 76.8% FT, but in the G League this year he is only attempting 2.8 3PA per game in spite of playing huge minutes at 36.6. In general his offense is limited for his age, with a meager 16.8% usage rate for G League Ignite.
His calling card would need to come on defense, where he has good dimensions at 6’7 with 7′ wingspan. His stocks and rebounding are solid and he is considered to be good on this end, which is why there is at least a case that he isn’t crazily overrated. But you would want to see more offensively for a 21 year old wing before taking him in the lottery.
Jaden Hardy, ESPN: 17th
Hardy entered the season with top 5 hype and has been remarkably bad for G League ignite, as he is essentially a 6’4 one dimensional scorer with terrible shooting percentages, making 40.2% 2P and 26.9% 3P.
He doesn’t offer much in the way of passing, rebounding, or defense, and is pretty much the worst possible NBA mold of undersized and inefficient chucker. The only redeeming quality thus far is that he is 30/34 FT, so perhaps he can be developing into a much more efficient player and become something like an Anfernee Simons.
But man this is such a dreadful archetype to gamble on, especially when there is such little goodness that he has shown for G League ignite. He could eventually justify a first round value, but I wouldn’t want to run a team that rolls the dice on him.
International Love (or lack thereof)
As bad as this NCAA class is, the international class is worse.
There seems to be some bias in drafts that there should be some international player who deserves some hype, so when classes are particularly thin there are some truly dreadful prospects being promoted in round 1.
This year that is exemplified, with 3 players currently slotted in the 20’s undeservedly.
Nikola Jovic, ESPN: 23
If you squint hard enough you can see some case for Jovic being NBA caliber. He is young and does not turn 18 until June, and has a nice intersection of shooting and passing for a 6’10 prospect making 37.7% 3P 75% FT while averaging 3.1 assists per game in 28 minutes for Mega Bemax in the Adriatic League.
But after that everything starts to look like a player who simply cannot hang physically in the NBA. He has dreadful reboundings and stocks, averaging just 4.4 rebounds, 0.5 steals, and 0.5 blocks per game. He is a slow footed and underathletic PF who likely will not be able to guard anybody in the NBA.
Further, his offense is sorely limited beyond his passing and shooting, as he has a meager 44.9% 2P on middling volume, an anemic free throw rate, and is somewhat turnover prone. Consequently, his offense is inefficient and he has a paltry 12.6 PER.
If he was a domestic prospect with better physical tools, he still likely wouldn’t be a first round prospect with all of his flaws but at least it would be reasonable to be more forgiving and give him a chance. As it is, the odds are stacked against him ever becoming NBA caliber, and he should not go in round 1. Perhaps if you want to take a random stash in round 2 he would be fine, which is more than can be said for the other 2 prospects currently slated for round 1
26. Ousmane Dieng 27. Hugo Besson
It’s an exciting time for the New Zealand Breakers, as they somehow have two prospects slated for round 1. If either of them are chosen in round 1, they will have a case for worst round 1 prospect in NBA history.
Dieng’s strength is that he is only 18 and does not turn 19 until May. His weakness is playing the game of basketball, as he has a grotesque -0.1 PER in 181 minutes for the breakers. He is averaging 3.7 points, 2.1 rebs, 0.9 assists, 1.1 turnovers, 0.1 steals, 0.2 blocks with a 27.7% TS.
It is impressive how bad he has been, and it is unclear why he is on NBA radar. He is completely and utterly undraftable.
Hugo Besson has been more productive, but he should be since he is a 6’3 guard with underwhelming athleticism who turns 21 in April. His strength is scoring, as he averages 15.5 pts in 28 minutes with 35.8% 3P and 81.8% FT.
But otherwise his profile looks extremely grim. He is averaging 1.1 assists, 2.1 turnovers, and 0.1 steals, which all are glaring red flags for an unathletic point guard of his age. He is a good shooter, but not an elite one, and it is unclear how he may be able to have an NBA career. He is also completely and utterly undraftable.
This draft seems to have an inordinate amount of undersized shooting guards in round 1, so let’s sort through them:
Jalen Green(#2 ESPN)
Green is the headliner of the class, currently projected to go #2 overall with outlier elite athleticism and highlight reel scoring ability.
His big flaw is that he is tiny for a shooting guard. He is listed at 6’6″ for G League Ignite, but so is Jonathan Kuminga. Based on any image of them standing next to each other, Kuminga is at least 2″ taller.
For a quick and dirty estimate, we can compare these measurements of a number of these players to their combine measurements to see how much these prospects grew on average:
If we use the laws of averages from this sample, Green would be 6’4.25″ in shoes with 6’7.5″ wingspan and weigh 180 pounds. That is a small player.
He is 3 months younger than the average player age in the sample, but he is also smaller and it seems less common for little guys to big growth spurts at this age. Further, the only two non-lotto picks from this sample to opt out of measurements were Sharife Cooper and Cam Thomas who measured 5’11.5″ and 6’1.5″ respectively, which indicates that they likely did not have significant growth spurts to show off to NBA teams.
If Green measured a fraction of an inch above 6’5″ in shoes, that would give him the biggest growth spurt in the class, which doesn’t seem likely. And he certainly doesn’t look like he filled out much in terms of strength.
Let’s err on the side of generosity and give him an extra half inch relative to his law of averages dimensions and his listed weight at 180. Here are the NBA players who he is most physically similar to:
Height
Length
Weight
Jalen Green
6’4.75
6’8
180
Devin Booker
6’5.75
6’8.25
206
Zach LaVine
6’5.75
6’8.25
181
Bradley Beal
6’4.75″
6’8
202
He even skews slightly smaller on this scale, as LaVine is 1″ taller and Beal + Booker are significantly beefier. Beal also played much bigger in college, with 4.7% and 18.2% offense and defense rebound rates and 2.6% block rate compared to Green’s 1.9%/11.6% OR/DR and 0.8% BLK.
This trio also indicates approximately the peak of goodness for smaller SG’s. All time greats like Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and Vince Carter were all listed at 6’6″ with 6’11” wingspans and clearly stronger frames than Green. It doesn’t seem like ~1″ height, ~3″ length, and ~15 pounds of muscle should make the different between all-time great and low end all-star like Zach LaVine, but based on NBA history it seems to have a substantial impact on attainable upside.
James Harden measured 6’5.25″ with 6’10’75” wingspan and 222 pounds, and was a megastud college player who is essentially a point guard in a SG body.
Dwyane Wade measured 6’3.75″ without shoes with 6’10.75″ wingspan and 212 pounds. He was a better college rebounder than 6’11.5″ Kai Jones and is the best shotblocking SG in NBA history, and functioned as much bigger than his size.
Ray Allen was 6’5, and there is no information on his wingspan but he rebounded similarly to Bradley Beal in college and became one of the greatest shooters in NBA history.
Essentially almost every great non-PG at 6’4 or 6’5 both was functionally bigger due to frame + length and played bigger in terms of rebounding and/or shotblocking, and Green fills none of these boxes. This makes his size a major red flag, even with his 99th percentile athleticism.
It makes sense, as these small guys can be bullied and hunted on defense, and by not being a floor general they often need another ball handler on the floor who tends to skew small. And it is difficult to consistently score over bigger players, so there is a cap on scoring efficiency for these little guys.
Athleticism is an extremely important physical tool, but it can only do so much for a player whose size and mold essentially caps his upside at low end all-star such as LaVine or Booker. The optimistic argument would be that Green is better than Zach LaVine at the same age, so maybe he can be better than LaVine longterm and be the best player in NBA history in this mold.
Yet that can all come to fruition and he can still not be a hall of fame caliber player, which is why it is difficult to see the case for him as a top 3 pick.
How Good are LaVine and Booker?
This is especially true when players like LaVine and Booker are extremely difficult to build around. Take the Phoenix Suns for instance–they have built around Booker perfectly, with Chris Paul finishing 5th in MVP voting, former #1 overall DeAndre Ayton blossoming into a quality NBA big this playoffs, and a cast of quality role players with no weak link. Yet they needed heavy injuries to opposing stars to even make the finals, and now that they are here they are down 3-2 with their game 2 win being massively luck driven shooting 20/40 from 3 vs 9/31 from the Bucks in a 10 point win. Game 2 could have easily been a double digit loss with neutral shooting luck.
And while Milwaukee is likely the 2nd best team in the NBA and a worthy champion, Phoenix was able to avoid playing the best team in Brooklyn after injuries to James Harden and Kyrie Irving caused them to fall short to the Bucks in 7.
Phoenix is around the 5th or 6th best team in the NBA and good enough to sniff a title with enough luck on their side. And if they win this year, it will have been due to extreme luck and they will be one of the weakest champions in NBA history.
On the bright side, you could say that Booker is good enough to be the 2nd best guy on a fringe NBA contender that isn’t exactly loaded with star power, and if they had correctly taken Luka Doncic over DeAndre Ayton, they would have enough star power to win it all.
But if they had Doncic and Paul, what is the value of having Booker? If they have the option of a Doncic or CP3 pick and roll, Booker’s ability to score in isolation and make difficult shots is not particularly useful as it is the least efficient option and comes with by far the weakest passing. And it is not worth paying him a max deal to stand in the corner and play like a glorified Anthony Morrow in a 3 minus D role.
This is the problem with this mold. Being small enough to get hunted on defense without being a natural floor general on offense is a massive double hit to a player’s value. Booker is talented enough to be perhaps the 3rd best player on a good NBA champion, but to maximize his value he needs to be taking the most shots, which makes him incredibly difficult to build around. He essentially needs to be surrounded with the perfect blend of role players, and it is difficult to offer him a much better cast than Phoenix has without having star(s) that render his creation ability redundant.
Having a Booker type makes it easier to win 50+ games and be a threat to win a playoff series or two. But if you are picking top 3 and looking to change your franchise’s fortunes and maximize future championship odds, how can you justify taking somebody who maxes out somewhere in the vicinity of Devin Booker’s level? This badly caps your upside with a flawed player who is difficult to build around, while having bust risk just like anybody else.
One final sanity check for Green is to compare his G League #’s to Kobe Bryant’s NBA rookie season. They are essentially the same player, except Kobe is 6.5 months younger and playing in the NBA instead of the G-League. And that is forgetting Kobe being in the minimum tier of dimensions and strength to be a hall of fame SG while Green misses the cut across the board.
Even if they seem close enough physically, Kobe has a sneakily significant size advantage. And that 6.5 month age gap is not trivial either at such a young age.
If Green is an undersized G League knockoff of Kobe, it is difficult to see how that amounts to a top 3 pick.
Granted, he could seem like a fine choice in retrospect if he becomes as good as Booker and LaVine and becomes a low end all-star. And perhaps he develops into a slightly better passer and defensive player than either and is the GOAT score first little guy. There aren’t that many stud athletes who are competent at the G League level at a young age such that we can completely write him off.
But given the limited value of the mold and its difficulty to build around, Green is not a favorable valuable proposition relative to prospects like Evan Mobley, Cade Cunningham, Scottie Barnes, Jalen Suggs, Franz Wagner, or Alperen Sengun.
Green is still likely the best small SG in the draft, but it is not by as significant of a margin as his consensus rating will have you believe.
The Tennessee Boys: Jaden Springer (#29 ESPN) and Keon Johnson(#9 ESPN)
These two share a number of striking similarities. Johnson measured 6’4.75″ with 6’7.25″ wingspan, Springer 6’4.25″ with 6’7.75″ wingspan. Springer is beefier weighing in at 202 vs 185 pounds, while Keon has nuclear powered calves as he smashed the combine record for standing vertical leap by 2″ at 41.5″ with Nick Young and Kenny Gregory being 2nd at 39.5″. This is inflated due to him tanking his standing reach measurement by 3-4″, but the guy can nevertheless jump.
Statistically they also are near twins in many ways:
Age
USG
OR%
DR%
AST%
TOV%
STL%
BLK%
FTr
Keon
18.8
26.8
4.8
10.9
20.7
22.4
2.5
2
0.409
Jaden
18.3
26.1
4.6
10.9
24
20.6
2.7
2
0.44
Springer is 6.5 months younger and had slightly more assists and fewer turnovers, but otherwise they are twins. And if that’s not enough, check their distribution of shots per 100 possessions:
2PA
2P%
3PA
3P%
FTA
FT%
Keon
16.8
0.492
4.1
0.271
8.5
0.703
Jaden
16.3
0.475
4.1
0.435
9
0.81
Both guys also love to pull up for mid-range shots. It is almost eerie how they are nearly the same exact player, except Springer has more offensive polish, strength, and youth while Keon can jump to the moon.
They should be likely be valued in the same tier, and it is outright crazy that ESPN mocks Springer at #29 currently. He will likely get picked higher in reality.
Springer
Intuitively, the younger guy with more polish seems like he should trade over, but Springer’s creation is very ugly as he relies on heavy dribbling as he bullies his way for incessant mid-range jumpers. Johnson’s creation is ugly too, but if he develops his skills over time, he has the athleticism to blow by his opponents for more easy buckets.
Springer’s ideal path as an NBA player will likely be as a 3 + D role player like Gary Harris who plays as a secondary handler rather than a lead guard. They are similar physically with the only difference being Springer 1″ longer, so let’s make Springer sandwich with Gary Harris’s two college seasons:
Age
USG
OR%
DR%
AST%
TOV%
STL%
BLK%
FTr
Harris
18.3
20.6
3.7
6.2
9.8
15.2
2.8
0.7
0.298
Springer
18.3
26.1
4.6
10.9
24
20.6
2.7
2
0.44
Harris
19.3
25.4
4
10.2
16.8
12.7
3.4
1.6
0.312
Springer was the better FT shooter making 81% as a freshman vs Harris 78.8% over two years. But Gary Harris attempted more 3’s at 9.7 per 100 as a freshman and 12.3 as a sophomore, making 37.6%, compared to a measure 4.1 3PA/100 for Springer.
Harris started as a good NBA 3 + D role player until he was plagued by injuries and stopped making 3’s. Ideally, Springer wants to cut out his dribbling for mid-range jumpers and replace them with spot up 3’s, which he should be able to do given his excellent FT% and youth.
Then the question is whether Springer can be better than Harris due to playing slightly bigger at a young age in terms of rebounds and blocks, and if his creation ability amounts to any substantial advantage. It is difficult to have much confidence in his creation, but he is so young it has to be valued as worth something.
In retrospect, Harris was a decent return on a 19th overall pick, and Springer is a slightly suped up version of Harris and it would make sense to value him as a late lottery choice
Johnson
Keon is more complicated to evaluate. Simple logic would be that a small guard with bad offense should not work out most of the time. The bad comp for him is Archie Goodwin:
Goodwin was 0.5″ taller and 2.25″ longer, and a good athlete in his own rite albeit not on Keon’s level of elite athleticism.
Age
USG
OR%
DR%
AST%
TOV%
STL%
BLK%
FTr
Keon
18.8
26.8
4.8
10.9
20.7
22.4
2.5
2
0.409
Archie
18.4
27.5
5.6
10.4
16.8
21
2.1
1
0.594
Granted, Archie slid to the late 1st at 29th overall and perhaps there was good reason for that. He shot 26.6% from 3 and 63.7% FT in college so perhaps GM’s thought his shot was irreparably broken, maybe his athleticism did not inspire enough upside excitement, or maybe they did not believe he was committed enough to work and improve his game to invest a better pick.
If we look at lottery picks, Kris Dunn or Emmanuel Mudiay may seem like reasonable downside comps. Except Mudiay didn’t have a college sample to compare to, and Kris Dunn was an even more limited offensive player than Johnson at the same age posting a similar efficiency (96 ORtg vs 95.5) on a far lower usage rate (16.3 vs 26.8). Dunn was a more natural PG, but because he couldn’t score he wasn’t a much more prolific passer than Johnson with a relatively minor advantage in AST% at 22.8 vs 20.6. Dunn improved substantially from his freshman to junior and senior seasons, but perhaps an elite athlete like Keon Johnson would have as well.
Now if we shift to positive comps, we can start with arguably the most nuclear athlete in the NBA: Russell Westbrook. Westbrook measured 1.25″ shorter but 0.5″ longer. Let’s take his career per 100 possession stats at UCLA because his minute weighted age is similar to Johnson’s:
Age
2PA
2P%
FTA
REB
AST
TOV
STL
BLK
Keon
18.8
16.8
0.492
8.5
8
5.7
6
2.5
1
RWB
19
15.2
0.491
6.9
6.9
7.3
4.5
2.9
0.3
Russ is clearly a more natural point guard, with a better assist rate, lower turnover rate, and more steals. This is with sharing the load with Darren Collison, and he likely could have done even more playmaking if he had complete control of the offense during his sophomore year.
But Keon played slightly bigger, with more rebounds and blocks, and scored a slightly higher volume, had a slightly higher 3PA rate (4.1 per 100 vs 3.8) and FT% (70.3 vs 68.5). These are relatively small advantages compared to Westbrook’s more natural floor general skills, and it is difficult to imagine a version of Westbrook that is less point guardy but slightly better in other areas would look like. But it would be something, to say the least.
Another comparison may be surprising. Brandon Roy was not drafted until he made significant leaps as a junior and senior, and he measured 1.5″ taller and 0.75″ longer than Johnson. But he had a surprisingly rocky start to his NCAA career that parallels to Johnson. His 224 minute freshman sample was really bad, so let’s compare his sophomore season to that of Keon:
Age
2PA
2P%
FTA
REB
AST
TOV
STL
BLK
Keon
18.8
16.8
0.492
8.5
8
5.7
6
2.5
1
Roy
19.4
15.8
0.505
7.8
9.5
5.9
4.9
2.2
0.7
Roy’s shooting signal looked similar as well, as he made just 9/37 3’s and 72.1% FT in his first two seasons at UW.
His extra SG size cannot be ignored, nor can his massive leap over the two following seasons as well as a better than expected NBA translation. But Johnson is the clearly better athlete between the two, and it’s probably worth something to note that how similar they were at a young age.
The other elite athlete to pop up as a statistical comp is Zach LaVine. LaVine is 1″ taller and longer, and played a different role in college as more of a spot up shooter with Kyle Anderson, Norman Powell, and Jordan Adams leading the UCLA offense. LaVine was arguably the worst player in the NBA as a rookie, but through hard work and elite athleticism he made an all-star team.
Ultimately, it’s complicated for Keon Johnson. On one hand, it seems that his offense is far too inefficient to fit in the NBA as a little guy. But then when you dig through past examples, the high tier athletes who fill up the stat sheet decently enough in all categories like Keon tend to make greater progressions than expected. But there isn’t one truly satisfactory comp to look back on, and it is difficult to envision his NBA role. His size limits his defensive versatility, and while he has some PG skills it is difficult to see him blossoming into a true floor general.
It is difficult to get excited by the idea of drafting him, but it is similarly difficult to criticize the idea of drafting him once the top tier guys are off the board.
Springer is more simple because he has more polish and fits more of a role player mold, and it is easier to see him fitting into an NBA lineup. But he likely doesn’t have the same upside tail as Johnson.
These guys are both fairly weird. It is difficult to say which one should be valued higher with any confidence, as both belong in a similar tier. It seems fair to value them in the back end of the lottery as the 2nd and 3rd best small SG’s in the draft.
James Bouknight #8 ESPN Quentin Grimes #28 ESPN
Grimes is 0.5″ taller at 6’5.25″ vs 6’4.75, Bouknight is 0.25″ longer at 6’8.25 vs 6’8, and Grimes has an extra 15 pounds of beef at 205 vs 190 pounds.
Bouknight is rated much higher for his superior off the dribble creation ability, whereas Grimes is more of a pure spot up shooter.
Grimes has had a particularly interesting career arc. He started his NCAA career in Kansas as the #8 RSCI recruit, and after a dreadful freshman year transferred to Houston where he had a solid sophomore season. After shooting a pedestrian 33.3% 3P and 64% FT to start his career, his shooting completely blasted off as a junior making 40.3% of his 3PA on a massive 15.3 3PA per 100 possessions, and backed it up with a 78.8% FT. He also saw significant leaps in rebounds, steals, and blocks.
It is generally prudent to be wary of taking major NCAA leaps at face value due to small sample noise, but then Grimes proceeded to be the best player on the floor in the two combine scrimmages by a comfortable margin.
In two games, he was able to make 9/16 from 3 in 50 minutes of play, as he showed off a lightning fast release to go with good off ball movement and a good step back 3. He also showed off impressive athleticism, a bit more drive and dish game than he did at Houston, and he abused Austin Reaves off the dribble on a couple of occasions. His defense looked solid, he moves his feet well, his frame makes him difficult to push around, and he seems to have decent awareness. Everything about him looked good, and he should find a role in the NBA as a 3 + D role player.
Granted, this was only two games of unorganized basketball, but it appears that Grimes is finally living up to his top 10 recruiting hype. Between his combine performances and RSCI, it seems relatively safe to take his breakout junior season at face value.
Bearing this in mind, Grimes and Bouknight have some interesting similarities in terms of box score production this past season:
Age
OR%
DR%
AST%
STL%
BLK%
FT%
Grimes
20.7
5.4
14.1
12.7
2.6
1.1
0.788
Bouknight
20.3
5.4
15.1
12.8
2.2
0.9
0.802
Defensively they both do fairly well for their position, but Grimes eye tests as slightly better and his stronger frame makes him difficult to push around. If one prospect gets a slight edge for defense, it is Grimes.
This brings us to the more complicated offensive comparison per 100 possessions, where we will include Grimes’ sophomore season to get a feel for his junior transformation:
Age
2PA
2P%
3PA
FTA
AST
TOV
Grimes ’20
19.7
11.3
0.538
9.2
7.4
5.5
5
Grimes ’21
20.7
10.9
0.41
15.3
7
3.6
3.4
Bouknight
20.3
18.3
0.528
9.5
10.3
3.4
5.3
As a sophomore, Grimes was more of a playmaker who created more for his teammates and drew more free throws, but still had a fairly high turnover rate for a guy who did not create Bouknight’s scoring. As a junior, he fully embraced his role as a spot up guy and focused on getting as many 3PA as possible.
Bouknight may be best served to make a similar adjustment to his offensive approach. While he is capable of creating his own shot at the rim and finishing, he is not particularly efficient at it as he has a rudimentary handle and is prone to playing slightly out of control.
He nevertheless creates an impressive volume of 2PA that he converts at a good %, but this is largely due to cuts, putbacks, and transition play. If he is collectively creating an extra 7 2PA and 3 FTA compared to Grimes at a higher %, but at the cost of ~2 TOV and ~6 3PA without any additional assists is that really a favorable tradeoff? Do you really want your tunnel visioned and slight framed 6’5″ guard consistently trying to score inside arc against NBA defenses instead of playing within the flow of the offense and getting off a massive volume of 3PA?
It’s a difficult question to answer. Bouknight still is a more natural scorer with a better career FT% than Grimes (80% vs. 70%). And he does play well off ball. If he is willing to transition to more of an off ball player in the NBA, and finds a way to get off a big volume of 3PA, he should surpass Grimes offensively.
Bouknight could also make his shot creation work, but that is an extremely dicey proposition for a guy who had such a poor assist:TOV ratio at age 20 and is merely a good athlete as opposed to nuclear like Jalen Green or Keon Johnson. At this stage, his on ball play is more likely to be a bug than a feature.
Bouknight is a confusing guy, as he does a number of things well and it is easy to see him being useful to an NBA team. But it is hard to see a big upside tail for him, and things can go wrong if he tries to force the issue too much against bigger and more athletic NBA defenders.
Summary
Grimes gets a tiny edge on defense, and has figured out how to play an offensively style tailor made for an NBA role player which makes him a safer bet on offense. Bouknight has more longterm upside on offense, but is currently a chaotic ball of energy that needs to be refined and could prove to be frustrating on that end as well.
Ultimately, Bouknight is a weird guy who is difficult to pin down. It is difficult to know how his offense will translate to the NBA, and how good he can really be in his best case. But it is tough to see his star upside, and it is unclear whether he is actually a better prospect than Grimes.
The safest thing to say here is– why pick Bouknight in the mid-lottery when you can have Grimes in the late 1st?
I would currently rank these two not too far behind Springer and Johnson as the #4 and #5 SGs in the draft that belong somewhere in the mid-1st.
Josh Christopher(#34 ESPN)
Christopher is the discount version of Jalen Green, as he was the #10 RSCI freshman this past season.
He is not quite the athlete, passer, or shooter that Green is, but he is an impressive athlete in his own rite. You can see the offensive disparity with Green being better across the board in spite of playing the tougher schedule in the G League:
Age
2PA
2P%
3PA
3P%
FT%
AST
TOV
Green
18.9
9.9
0.550
7.3
0.358
0.786
3.8
3.4
Christopher
19.1
10.5
0.496
5.3
0.305
0.8
2.6
3.2
Christopher atones by being functionally larger with ~1.5″ more length and ~35 pounds more muscle, and functionally playing bigger:
OR%
DR%
STL%
BLK%
Green
1.9
11.6
2.4
0.8
Christopher
2.4
16.2
2.7
1.9
Again, not a perfect comparison in terms of league difficulty, but NCAA and G League are close enough such that it seems fair to give Christopher the edge here.
Green’s superior offense and athleticism should weigh significantly heavier than Christopher’s size advantage. But this doesn’t seem like such a blowout to justify the difference between a top 3 overall choice and a 2nd round pick.
Christopher should be valued somewhere in the back end of round 1.
Ayo Dosunmu #32 ESPN
Ayo is a good handler and passer for a SG, and could pass for a big PG as much as a small SG at 6’5″ with 6’10.25″ wingspan.
His limitation is that he is not the quickest or most explosive guard, and could end up getting beat often on defense while struggling to get to his spots offensively.
But he has a nice intersection of size, skill, and athleticism, and it wouldn’t be surprising to see him develop into a Spencer Dinwiddie caliber role player. He is worth a shot in the late 1st.
Bones Hyland #30 ESPN
Bones is a unique guy. He is an excellent shooter, and is capable of getting off shots at high volume and efficiency. In his two years at VCU, he averaged 13.8 3PA per 100 possessions making 39.9% while backing it up with 82.7% FT, and he also was effective scoring in his one game at the draft combine.
He measured only 6’3.5″ in shoes and weighs 169 pounds, which makes his size a significant concern. But he has a 6’9.25″ wingspan, and excels at making plays with his length to give himself a chance of hanging defensively.
His other concern is that he is not the most natural with the ball for a little guy. When he was asked to increase his usage rate from 21.1 to 28.6%, his assist to turnover ratio took a dive from 1.58 to 0.68. And he did not look particularly better off the dribble in the NBA combine scrimmage.
His flaws are scary, but he has some unique strengths to make him an interesting flier in the late 1st or early 2nd.
David Johnson (#40 ESPN)
Johnson is only 6’4.75″, but he has a nice 6’10.5″ wingspan to go with a solid frame and good athleticism.
He showed loads of promise as a freshman bench player, including a monster game at Duke. He looked like he may be in the discussion for a lottery pick entering his sophomore season, but he just couldn’t figure out how to do offense as his usage dropped and he saw major declines in his 2P% (54.5% to 42.6%), assist rate (35.9% to 18.8%), and FT rate (.278 to .183).
If there was a glimmer of hope, he did show a capable outside shot making 38.6% from 3 and 70% from FT after looking relatively busted as a freshman.
In the combine scrimmage he showed off impressive passing in his first game but was hesitant to attack off the dribble, and then he didn’t play the second game.
There’s a good chance he can’t handle well enough to make it in the NBA. But if his sophomore season was some fluke affected by COVID, and he figures out his handling, and his shooting comes around, he has a tantalizing combination of physical tools and vision for round 2.
He is a bit of a longshot, but there is some nice home run upside for a 2nd rounder. He is arguably even worth considering in the late 1st.
Cam Thomas#25 ESPN
Thomas is a unique guy, as he is exceptionally good at scoring without contributing anything else to the team. He might have the record for the highest ratio of points per game to the sum of rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals of any player who has ever been drafted. Based on a quick and dirty search that is probably not comprehensive, here is a list for comparison from the past 20 years:
Prospect
Year
Pts
Reb
Ast
Stl
Blk
RABS
Ratio
Cameron Thomas
FR
23
3.4
1.4
0.9
0.2
5.9
3.90
John Jenkins
JR
19.9
2.9
1.2
0.8
0.3
5.2
3.83
John Jenkins
SO
19.5
3
1.2
0.8
0.3
5.3
3.68
Jodie Meeks
JR
23.7
3.4
1.8
1.3
0.1
6.6
3.59
Seth Curry
SR
17.5
2.5
1.5
0.9
0.2
5.1
3.43
Salim Stoudamire
SR
18.4
2.3
2.2
0.8
0.1
5.4
3.41
Malik Monk
FR
19.8
2.5
2.3
0.9
0.5
6.2
3.19
Joe Young
JR
18.9
2.8
1.9
1.3
0
6
3.15
There’s a clear brand here– little guys who can shoot and do not much else. Meeks and Curry have had careers as NBA role players so he can be something. But overall this list is fairly weak, and Thomas may not buck the trend as he is probably 6’2 or 6’3″ and one of the worst defensive players in the draft.
His closest comparison is Malik Monk, and he is a slightly worse pull than Monk who was ranked a bit higher RSCI at #9 vs #22 and at least had the excuse that maybe John Calipari was suppressing his numbers, as he showed more hope as a passer and shot blocker.
Thomas does have good wingspan (measured 6’6″ in 2019) and frame and if he does start caring about defense and becomes passable, he can fit in some NBA lineups that have a bigger shot creator as a more athletic Seth Curry. There is something to be said for him to have scored so much as a freshman, and he did so with a microscopic turnover ratio while making 88.2% FT. So he may be a justifiable choice around the turn of round 1.
But it’s just so hard to win with this brand, as historically it either ends in complete bust or flawed bench player, so he probably belongs moreso in early round 2 than late round 1.
Chris Duarte#22 ESPN
Duarte is the senior citizen of the draft, having turned 24 in June.
He fits a nice 3 + D archetype, and he can possibly give whoever drafts him a rotation player for cheap for 4 years as his rookie deal will essentially cover his prime.
But he is so limited with the ball and so low upside, it is difficult to see how he is adequate value for round 1. His best comp is likely Damion Lee who went undrafted and was acquired on the cheap by Golden State, and still was cheap to retain after finding a rotation role.
Searching for a cheap 8th man is such a suboptimal use of a late 1st round pick when there are guys who can be better right away and solid for years to come still on the board.
Duarte did do really well for Oregon and can be a bit better than Lee, and is likely fine in round 2. But capping your upside this badly in round 1 is just wrong. You can find similar caliber pulls to fill out the bench on the scrap heap and aim higher with your first round pick.
2014 was the first draft I blogged about, and I started this blog largely because it was so much fun to analyze that crop. Now 2021 is loaded with parallels with makes it similarly exciting to analyze.
But in spite of his disappointment, Wiggins still went #1 overall as his freshman performance was good enough to not wash away the shiny hype he entered the season with, and the prospect of improvement based on his elite athleticism.
Now this year, Cade Cunningham was hyped as a Luka Doncic type generational prospect, but has performed more on Wiggins’ level while Evan Mobley has been the elite, athletic 7 footer who stuffs the stat sheet. Yet Cade’s preseason hype has helped him maintain theconsensus #1 overall status.
In fact, Cade’s hype has held up even stronger than than Wiggins, as at least there were genuine discussions as to whether Embiid should go #1 before his medical red flags caused him to drop to #3. In this case, Cade is still holding strong as the consensus #1 overall in spite of Mobley being completely healthy.
The Cade/Wiggins comparison has been commonly dismissed as Wiggins being an athlete who has no idea how to play, and that Cade’s passing and shooting means that he won’t fail. But that ignores the fact that Wiggins was not any worse of an NCAA player than Cade, while also being 5 months younger. Let’s look at a quick and dirty spot check of NCAA goodness with Box Score Plus/Minus
Age
BPM
Mobley
19.6
13.7
Embiid
19.8
11.9
Wiggins
18.9
8.3
Cade
19.3
8.3
In retrospect is is easy to reduce Wiggins to an athlete who has no clue how to play, but it just was not that apparent at the time. He had decent scoring ability offensively, averaged 17 points on solid shooting %’s, drew a ton of free throws, and was a good defensive player due to his excellent athleticism.
Now people may lament that Cade’s teammates were the worst thing since sliced bread, while Wiggins played on a perennially great Kansas team. But then when we look at their on/off splits, Wiggins is the one who made a clearly positive impact on his team. From hooplens.com:
Wiggins not only had a major impact on the defense as a long, athletic player who could defend multiple positions, but he also had a more clearly positive impact on the offense where he could at least use his athleticism to get some easy shots, crash the offensive glass, and draw a high volume of free throws. Whereas in spite of his passing, Cade’s team seemed to get more easy 2 pointers with him off the floor.
Of course this doesn’t prove that Cade will be as bad as Wiggins, as college on/off stats are very noisy and plenty of players with lower freshman BPMs have gone on to be all-stars. On average, Cade should be better than Wiggins. But it is enough information to at least start questioning what makes Cade’s floor necessarily higher than Wiggins.
The common answer would be that athleticism is overrated, and Cade’s shooting and passing is what is actually the more valuable trait. But that isn’t necessarily the case– athleticism is and always has been an incredibly valuable NBA trait. Further, OJ Mayo could shoot and pass as well as Cade and had a pedestrian NBA career. The real lesson from Wiggins should be that being well rounded with limited flaws is predictive of NBA stardom– not checking a few magical boxes regardless of the flaws that come with it.
One funny commonality is that both were arguably better as role players. Wiggins had a narrative that worst case he would be a great role player as he could make an open 3 and be a defensive stopper. But Minnesota had different plans for him to relentlessly chuck stepback jumpers from mid-range instead, and it did not amount to a good player.
There seems to be a similar notion with Cade, that worst case he can be a more athletic Joe Ingles who provides excellent 3 + D support. But Joe Ingles wouldn’t be Joe Ingles if he was drafted #1 and expected to carry the offense like Luka Doncic, because he would do very poorly in that role.
Cade may do a better job of it than Joe Ingles would, but that doesn’t mean he will necessarily be an adequate primary creator in the NBA. And if he always has the ball in his hands– how much value does his shooting *really* carry? Being able to make pullup 3’s is a helpful skill, but if he is still collectively inefficient and his shooting is not often being used to provide spacing gravity to his other teammates, it diminishes the value of it.
Maybe Cade Turns Out Better than Wiggins
But does it really matter? This kid from USC is an obvious stud and everything about him is wired for efficiency. You would think that with the advent of statistics that qualities like elite efficiency, passing, defense, in a player who is also taller, longer, and more athletic than Cade would be valued higher. But the level of analysis has gotten so basic that all that matters are checking the magical boxes of being a wing creator (doesn’t matter if you are good or bad at it as long as you tried!) and being able to shoot. Conversely being tall makes you automatically bad, even if you are capable of doing perimeter things like handle, pass, shoot, and switch onto smaller players.
It is such a basic level of analysis, it is like watching everything go backwards. At least in 2014 teams were open enough to bigs for Embiid over Wiggins to be a realistic discussion before Embiid’s injury flags mucked everything up. Now we have a stud in Mobley who isn’t even in the conversation with a clean bill of health.
It makes sense to place an additional emphasis on speed and skill over taking whatever big stiff is available to fill the middle. But this has gone overboard. Being tall always has been and always will be an incredibly useful trait for basketball. And momentum can always shift back toward bigs– for instance the coming rule changes to reduce cheap fouls on shooters adds just a bit more value back toward bigs and away from guards and wings.
And regardless, a tall guy like Mobley who can protect the rim and do perimeter things like handle, pass, and shoot are going to give you a ton of lineup flexibility.
And the #2 pick is even worse than #1
As flawed and overhyped as Wiggins was, he still fit a quality NBA mold and had enough strengths such that in his mid 20’s, he has finally become a useful NBA player. And he still has room to grow into a solidly + player, much like Rudy Gay who was his negative comp, but ended up having a better than expected second act for the Spurs.
On the other hand, Jabari Parker was the ultimate empty calories scorer, and he is so one dimensional with such bad defense that he is nothing more than a cheap flier for his 6th team in Boston as he enters his prime age.
Granted, there is no reason to believe Jalen Green will necessarily be that bad. His athletic scoring off the dribble looks quite a bit more aesthetically pleasing and should have better NBA translation than Parker’s bully ball. Perhaps he can have a career closer to his physical doppelganger Zach LaVine, who was chosen later in the 2014 lottery.
But Green is much smaller than Parker and there are so many scenarios where he is just dreadful on defense without offering much more than scoring offensively, he has a nasty downside tail and his upside is capped at the Zach LaVine/Devin Booker tier, which is not good enough to win a championship as your best player.
Booker needed MVP candidate Chris Paul, a quality big in former #1 overall pick DeAndre Ayton, and a strong cast of quality role players just to be a 2nd tier contender who was able to make the finals when every star player in their path got injured. He is a good player and contributed to the run to be sure, but you want to aim higher than a Booker best case at #2 overall, especially when it comes attached to a fair amount of bust risk.
The Rest of the Draft May Be Even Better
It would really be something to see a top 3 of 1. Cade 2. Green 3. Mobley perfectly mirror the Wiggins, Parker, Embiid top 3 of 2014. And even after that, there are some similarities.
Scottie Barnes, like Aaron Gordon is the big, toolsy wing with questionable shooting. Gordon is the more explosive athlete, but Barnes is longer with better PG skills. I would rate Barnes as the better prospect between the two based on pre-draft.
Jalen Suggs is the high IQ combo guard, similar to Marcus Smart. But he has a better first step with more offensive potential, which makes him the better pre-draft prospect than Smart.
We even have a young, tall point guard from Australia in Josh Giddey, who hopefully has a better NBA career than Dante Exum. Giddey is stylistically closer to Lonzo Ball than Exum, but is smoother with his movement as well as being the more skillful passer. He has a certain wizardry to his passing, as he not only is exceptionally high IQ with great vision, but is also highly accurate and passes like he has the ball on the string. He has limited tools and scoring which give him a wide range of future outcomes, but his passing is so outlier good for his height and youth he clearly has a nice upside tail.
Later in the lottery, we have a one dimensional mid-major shooter Corey Kispert playing the role of Doug McDermott being slotted far above where his talent level merits.
International Man of Mystery
The 2014 draft was also loaded with awesome international bigs. I ranked Jusuf Nurkic and Clint Capela 5th and 6th ahead of Parker and Wiggins, and Nikola Jokic 16th. This year there is only one elite big but he is better than all of them: Alperen Sengun.
But the trouble is that they were all true centers, whereas Sengun is more of an old school PF. Is he more of a Julius Randle, who in spite of quality box score production, does not fit the modern NBA and will turn into a pumpkin in the playoffs?
In some ways Sengun is similar to Randle, but he also offers more than 2x the steal and block rates (2.6/5.9 vs 1.0/2.6) almost 2x the assist:TOV ratio (1.11 vs 0.57), a wetter jump shot (79.4% FT vs 70.6%), and much better interior scoring (67.4% 2P vs 51.7%) on higher usage (26.7 vs 25.5). All while playing in a better league at 8 months younger.
At the time I argued that Randle is just not an interesting mold, and even if he posts good stats he may not be that useful in the NBA. And it is an interesting debate where he should rank in a re-draft. I ranked him #22, which feels too low based on his recent season in NYK. But that was after his initial team let him walk for nothing when New Orleans signed him for the mid level exception. So perhaps it was a reasonable place to rate him, as there is no clear answer.
Regardless, it’s fascinating how much the market has adjusted since then. Randle went 7th overall and was considered a reasonable or even good pick by most at the time. Now Sengun is a massively suped up version with much more perimeter qualities and hope on defense, yet he isn’t even projected to go in the lottery.
At this point it doesn’t seem that most people are critically thinking about the ways in which Sengun can provide value to a team, and are just blindly fading him based on his perceived mold.
It is completely reasonable to dock his value for having questions about how he fits into the modern NBA, but based on just the #’s he is the clear #1 pick in this draft. You are heavily shorting his mold just by dropping him out of the top 5. Dropping him out of the top 10 seems like a clear overreaction to the recent trends in the modern NBA.
Trends Don’t Last Forever
It is crazy how much has changed in the past 7 years after the Warriors built the death lineup around Steph Curry and Draymond Green, and the rest of the league started adapting to combat them. Now that the Warriors are no longer a contender, the small ball trend has continued, and may continue indefinitely.
But that doesn’t mean that the momentum cannot slightly swing back toward bigs whether it be with small rule changes such as reducing fouls on non-basketball moves. Or perhaps a new super team emerges, which causes a shift back the other way.
Imagine if Mobley and Sengun were paired together. They would be a perfect duo on defense– Sengun cleans up the glass and puts a body on stronger bigs in the post, while Mobley handles the rim protection. Offensively, you have two bigs who can handle, pass, shoot, and score inside. Sengun should be an especially good floor spacer, while Mobley can at least make an open shot.
When you have that level of creation, passing, finishing, and shooting from your two bigs, it is ridiculously easy to build a good offense. It will be especially difficult for small lineups to match up with them, even though Sengun is short for a 5 and Mobley is skinny, their passing and interior scoring could collectively provide nightmares for a team that needs to put a big wing on either one of them. As of now almost every starting lineup in the NBA would need to do this.
It may be hard to believe that a great offense can come from somewhere other than wing or guard with a great first step, but let’s bear in mind that the Nuggets won a playoff series against Portland with a monster 123.4 ORtg in spite of having a guard rotation of Austin Rivers, Facundo Campazzo, Monte Morris, and Markus Howard. Michael Porter Jr. is a great shooter but nothing close to a point forward, and Aaron Gordon is not a volume creator.
Jokic is the MVP and one of the best offensive bigs of all time, but based on pre-draft Sengun clearly has more offensive talent and Mobley arguably does too. Even without either peaking nearly as high as Jokic, you can still build a really awesome offense around those two. Sengun may give a decent bit back on defense, but if he proves adept at guarding the perimeter, it would be over for the rest of the NBA.
And if teams are forced to match up with two bigs who provide those sort of matchup issues offensively, playing two bigs may start to become more commonplace once again. And if it does not, they can destroy the rest of the league with any decent supporting guards and wings.
Summary
By far the two drafts that I have been most motivated to scout film and generate content for have been 2014 and 2021, and there is a good reason for that– because they had the biggest inefficiencies at the top.
And the source of current inefficiencies is this obsession with mold. Which matters to some extent, as I noted in my 2014 writeups on Julius Randle. But at this point it has gotten so extreme that a significant portion of the basketball world is lazily grouping players into buckets without any further analysis for what they actually do on the floor.
Even though consensus should be getting sharper 7 years later, in certain ways it may be getting duller.
This is especially the case since at least Wiggins in 2014 had a clear argument for #1 with Embiid’s injury. He was actually better than Jabari Parker. Aaron Gordon and Marcus Smart proved to be better, but they are still mere role players.
Now this year, Mobley is healthier than Embiid, Suggs has more potential than Smart, Barnes has more potential than Gordon, Giddey may be better than Exum, Sengun is drastically better than Randle, and there isn’t even a Franz Wagner super role player in the mix. So the prizes at the top all offer possibly much richer payoffs, yet Cade is even more firmly entrenched in #1 than Wiggins was. This is not an efficient market.
At this point you cannot get ahead of the curve by going all in on wing creators and all out on anybody over 6’9. The recent trends toward small ball have been so fast and furious, at this point lineups cannot plausibly trend any smaller. And even if they tread water at current levels, elite bigs are still elite and mediocre wings are still mediocre.
The NBA has been a big centered game for 60+ years. There has been a vicious correction over the past 7 years, which should stay to a significant extent. But at this point it is safe to say that the correction is over, and even after all of that elite bigs are still elite and mediocre wings are still mediocre. At this point you cannot get ahead of the curve by overvaluing wings and disregarding bigs, but you can create elite opportunities for other teams who are interested in elite basketball players.
Evan Mobley is currently projected to go #3 overall, as he is a fluid and mobile 7’0 that offers a bit of everything.
The areas where he stands out in particular are with his passing and defense. He reads the defense very well, and every time he is double teamed he quickly swings it to the open shooter. And he was rim protector for the 6th best defense in the NCAA, and did so with an unprecedented ability to avoid fouls.
Let’s take a look at how his passing, rim protection, and foul rates compare to past top 5 big prospects at a similar age:
Age
AST%
A:TO
BLK%
PF/40
BLK:PF
Evan Mobley
19.6
14.1
1.20
8.8
2.1
1.64
DeAndre Ayton
19.5
10.2
0.83
6.1
2.8
0.81
Jaren Jackson Jr.
18.3
9.3
0.63
14.3
5.9
0.95
Karl Anthony-Towns
19.1
11.6
0.83
11.5
5
0.77
Kristaps Porzingis
19.4
5.2
0.38
5.2
4.9
0.40
Joel Embiid
19.8
11.5
0.58
11.7
6.3
0.77
Anthony Davis
18.8
7.5
1.22
13.7
2.4
2.38
Greg Oden
18.9
5
0.33
12.7
3.8
1.21
Al Horford
19.6
15.1
1.04
6.9
4.5
0.70
Tyrus Thomas
19.4
10.4
0.71
11.9
5
1.21
Andrew Bogut
20.1
18.2
0.85
6.2
5.8
0.83
Emeka Okafor
19.3
4.4
0.57
12.7
3.5
1.57
Chris Bosh
18.8
7.9
0.53
6.7
3
0.92
Mobley is in the conversation for best passing big of the top 20 years, as he only gets edged out in assist rate by sophomores Horford and Bogut, and atones with a better assist to turnover ratio.
He does not have quite the block rate as most of the stud rim protectors, but atones with his lack of fouling. The only prospect who showed a better ability to block without fouling is Anthony Davis, who was a clear top 3 prospect of the past 20 years.
Davis was also younger with better steals and rebounds and more explosive athleticism, so Mobley isn’t on his level of generational prospect. But he holds up well when compared to everybody else on the list.
Among the other prospects who were able to accumulate more blocks than fouls: Greg Oden, Emeka Okafor, and Tyrus Thomas, none were close to Mobley as a passer or a shooter.
Mobley gives some of his goodness back by having a thin frame and being weaker on the glass than everybody on this list other than JJJ. But you can see he has some unique strengths to make him exciting
Team Success
Andy Enfield’s tenure at USC has been decent but unspectacular. He was hired in 2013-14, and after two rebuilding seasons he was able to get the Trojans perennially to the NCAA tournament bubble, ranging from #49 to #82 kenpom ranking among D1 teams for 5 seasons in a row. And the 20-21 season appeared to be no different, as they lost their top 4 players ranked by win shares from the 19-20 season with Evan’s brother Isaiah as the only decent returner. They replaced everybody else with a glut of ordinary low and mid-major role players, and their perimeter creation appeared to be sorely lacking.
But it worked for a couple of reasons. They had the 6th best defense in NCAA, in large part because having two intelligent bigs makes for a strong defensive foundation. And they overperformed their #24 block rate with the #2 defensive 2P%– a sign that Mobley’s good but non-elite block rate may understate his rim protection. Similar to Tim Duncan and Andrew Bogut, he prioritizes forcing difficult shots over trying to send every opponent shot attempt into the stands.
They also had the 14th best offense, which was particularly shocking for a team with such pedestrian perimeter talent. But mid-major transfers Drew Peterson and Tahj Eaddy were able to sustain similar usage and assist rates as they did for their mid-major teams in 19-20 with a slight bump in efficiency for Peterson and a huge jump for Eaddy.
This is incredibly rare as most mid-major transfers see a significant drop in offensive output when they move up to high major. Peterson and Eaddy deserve credit for improving, but this level of performance likely would not be possible without two intelligent passing big men to make life easier for the guards and wings.
Consequently, USC ended up with by far the best team in Andy Enfield’s career, finishing as the #6 kenpom team and making a surprising elite 8 run.
Everybody talks about how bad Cade Cunningham’s teammates are, but every half-decent computer model rated Oklahoma State as the better team entering the season as he had relatively decent high major teammates. Evan Mobley was the top prospect who had the clearly most flawed cast, yet he was able to carry them much further than expected by several orders of magnitude.
Comps
Chris Bosh
The most obvious comp to Mobley is Chris Bosh, who shares a similar physical profile and looks like he could be Mobley’s biological father:
Age
USG
2P%
FT%
OR%
DR%
AST%
STL%
BLK%
Mobley
19.6
23.6
0.615
0.694
9.7
18.9
14.1
1.4
8.8
Bosh
18.8
22.5
0.576
0.73
10.8
20.8
7.9
1.8
6.7
Bosh was 9 months younger and showed slightly better rebounding and shooting (also attempted 1.9 3’s per 40 vs 1.4 for Mobley), but otherwise Mobley looks good with better passing, rim protection, and slightly better usage and efficiency.
Mobley is right on the cusp where he can maybe develop into a good shooter or maybe not, and this will obviously make a significant swing on his NBA value. But Bosh never became a reliable NBA shooter until his final few seasons. Mobley’s passing and rim protection advantages are so significant, if they were both in this draft he would likely deserve the edge as the better pick.
It’s close enough such that it’s not clear whether his median outcome will be better or worse than Bosh. And when that can be said about a comparison to a hall of fame player, that’s a good sign that Mobley is a worthy #1 overall.
Jaren Jackson Jr.
Another recent skinny big prospect who has some parallels is Jaren Jackson Jr.
Age
USG
2P%
FT%
OR%
DR%
AST%
STL%
BLK%
Mobley
19.6
23.6
0.615
0.694
9.7
18.9
14.1
1.4
8.8
JJJ
18.3
22.9
0.596
0.797
8.7
19.7
9.3
1.6
14.3
They are similar rebounding, and JJJ is the better shooter with better FT% and a higher 3PA rate of which he made 39.6% while being more than a full year younger. JJJ had more blocks, but Mobley had a small fraction of the foul rate, fouling 2.1 times per 40 compared to 5.9 for JJJ..
Personally I was extremely high on JJJ, and with his youthful upside it would have been difficult to take Mobley ahead of him. Especially since prospects with NBA fathers tend to out perform their draft stock, and Jaren Sr. outperformed himself going from undrafted free agent to useful rotation player for the championship Spurs.
Jaren Jr.’s rebounding, assist, and foul rates were all flags, but it made sense that he should improve his rebounding as he filled out and improve his assist and foul rates with repetition and experience, but none of that has happened.
In part this may be attributed to being hampered by injuries, and he at least showed an improved rebounding rate this past season. And he is not a bust by any stretch, as he is still a useful 21 year old player with plenty of upside to grow.
Mobley at least offers a safer and more polished prospect. He won’t be the same shooter as Jaren, but his superior passing and ability to avoid fouls are nice features that should make his NBA translation more seamless.
It is difficult to draw any strong conclusions from Jackson thus far, but he is a bit of a cautionary tale to show that Mobley is not a lock to be a stud– especially if he struggles to rebound in the NBA as much as Jackson has.
Joel Embiid
Embiid is much bigger and bulkier than Mobley, but they both have the coordination of ballerinas which is especially enticing in a talented 7 footer:
Age
USG
2P%
FT%
OR%
DR%
AST%
STL%
BLK%
Mobley
19.6
23.6
0.615
0.694
9.7
18.9
14.1
1.4
8.8
Embiid
19.8
24.7
0.639
0.685
12.7
27.3
11.5
2.2
11.7
Embiid’s major strength advantage shows in his vastly superior rebound rate, and he is no doubt the better raw talent than Mobley in a vaccum.
But Mobley makes up for this by being better at playing under control, with a significantly lower turnover (3.9 vs 5.9) and foul rate (3.1 vs 8.5) per 100. This is what him makes such a rare prospect– he is both physically capable of moving under control, and mentally capable of playing under control. In tandem this lends itself to elite levels of efficiency and positive team level impact.
Assuming full health, it is close between the two. But given Embiid’s significant health flags, Mobley would be the easy choice on draft night.
Tim Duncan/Kevin Garnett
Kevin Garnett is more physically similar to Mobley, but Duncan is the one with the college sample thus he will be the one who gets compared. Amazingly, Duncan was the same age as a junior as Mobley was as a freshman, so let’s compare that season, as it relatively falls in line with his overall college trajectory. Stats per 40 minutes:
Age
2PA
2P%
FTA
FT%
TRB
AST
TOV
STL
BLK
PF
Mobley
19.6
10.8
0.615
6.9
0.694
10.2
2.8
2.6
0.9
3.4
2.1
Duncan
19.7
13
0.57
7.3
0.687
13.3
3.1
3.5
0.7
4
2.4
It’s stunning how similar these guys are. Timmy has a bit more post game and edges out scoring volume at 20.6 pts per 40 vs 19.3 for Mobley. But Mobley compensates with better 2P%, lower TOV, and slightly better shooting.
Their assist, steal, block, free throw, and foul rates are more or less identical, and really the only area where Duncan stands out is due to his superior rebounding. In tandem with his thin frame, it is Mobley’s one nagging flaw and it is difficult to assess how much it matters.
On the bright side, Duncan never improved as a shooter, making 69.6% FT and 17.9% 3P in his NBA career. If Mobley develops into a real NBA 3 point threat, he can help atone for his lack of beef and rebounding.
The Rebounding Conundrum
Mobley’s only flaw is his thin frame and lack of rebounding, and there are different ways to look at it.
The downside is that Jaren Jackson Jr. posted similar NCAA rebound rates to Mobley, but has been an anemic 4.6%/14.4% O/D rebounder in the NBA thus far. If Mobley proves to be as soft inside as JJJ, he could be disappointing.
The upside is the two recent USC bigs to make the NBA have seamlessly translated their NCAA rebounding to the pros in limited NBA samples thus far: Onyeka Okongwu 12.4/18.4 NCAA to 12.0/17.9 NBA (including playoffs), Chimezie Metu 7.8/18.6 NCAA to 7.7/19.4 NBA.
So if we are being optimistic: Kevin Garnett was a month older as NBA rookie than Mobley as a USC freshman and posted slightly worse rebound rates: 9.1/17.0 that dipped further as sophomore to 7.6/16.8, before creeping up as he filled out and eventually became a very good rebounder in his prime.
If Mobley both sees his rebound translate well to the NBA and he consistently improves over time like Garnett, he can be a top 10 all-time great like Garnett and Duncan. This is an unlikely outcome, but in tandem with the possibility that he can also shoot 3’s better than Garnett and Duncan, this level of greatness cannot be ruled for Mobley.
The more realistic outcome is that he is a slightly different version of Chris Bosh, which is still a hall of fame level player worthy of a #1 overall choice.
And even if he falls short and is closer to a Jaren Jackson Jr. type– that is still a highly useful NBA player.
It is difficult to see how anybody else can be justified as the #1 overall pick. Mobley has the highest upside, median, and floor of anybody in the draft. His current ESPN projected at #3 overall is starting to feel like 2014 again– as the warty and overhyped wing Cade Cunningham plays the role of Andrew Wiggins and empty calories volume scorer Jalen Green plays the role of Jabari Parker in Zach LaVine’s body.
Cunningham and Green can have much better careers than Wiggins and Parker respectively, but you cannot take either over the elite 7 footer who moves like a ballerina and expect favorable results. At least in 2014, GM’s had the excuse of fretting over Embiid’s foot injury that delayed his eventual NBA debut by 2 seasons. In 2021 there is no injury excuse– you either take Mobley, or run the risk of setting your franchise back for years to come.
Any generational prospect should be able to compare favorably to other similar prospects. Cade Cunningham has great dimensions, frame, and shooting ability, but let’s see how he stacks up to past top 3 picks who were teenage offensive hubs at wing or guard.
In this case we will look at 2P% since that is more predictive of creation ability and less noisy than eFG%, assist to turnover ratio which more informative than raw TOV%, as well as offensive rebounding and free throw drawing over the past 20 drafts.
Year
Prospect
Age
2P%
AST:TO
OR%
FTr
2021
Cade Cunningham
19.3
0.461
0.86
2.3
0.39
2021
Scottie Barnes
19.4
0.561
1.66
7.4
0.339
2021
Jalen Suggs
19.6
0.588
1.55
2.7
0.367
2020
Anthony Edwards
18.4
0.504
1.05
2.5
0.338
2019
RJ Barrett
18.5
0.529
1.33
4.8
0.319
2019
Ja Morant
19.4
0.545
1.95
4.1
0.51
2019
Zion Williamson
18.5
0.747
0.87
12.7
0.467
2017
Jayson Tatum
18.8
0.504
0.82
4.8
0.381
2017
Markelle Fultz
18.6
0.502
1.85
4
0.383
2016
Ben Simmons
19.4
0.561
1.42
9.6
0.769
2016
Brandon Ingram
18.3
0.464
1
6
0.351
2016
Jaylen Brown
19.2
0.482
0.65
4.5
0.574
2015
D’Angelo Russell
18.8
0.479
1.72
3.6
0.303
2014
Andrew Wiggins
18.9
0.493
0.68
8.4
0.538
2012
Bradley Beal
18.5
0.541
1.05
4.8
0.44
2010
John Wall
19.3
0.504
1.62
2.6
0.53
2009
James Harden
19.3
0.564
1.25
5.4
0.597
2008
Derrick Rose
19.3
0.521
1.77
5
0.47
2008
OJ Mayo
20.2
0.464
0.93
3.9
0.284
2007
Kevin Durant
18.3
0.505
0.46
9
0.396
2003
Carmelo Anthony
18.6
0.496
1
8.9
0.389
Average
19.0
0.525
1.21
5.6
0.435
These guys are all in a roughly 1 year age range outside of old man OJ Mayo, and Cade is in the upper portion of that range. Among this group he rates dead last in 2P% and offensive rebounding rate, and is solidly below average in assist to turnover and free throw rate.
Scottie Barnes and Jalen Suggs are both projected outside of the top 3 in this year’s draft but they absolutely destroy Cade as efficient offensive hubs in terms of 2P% and assist:TOV ratio.
Even prospects seen as decidedly non-elite such as Anthony Edwards and RJ Barrett were better at everything except having a slightly lower free throw rate while being nearly a full year younger. Cade is bigger and better at shooting, but his basketball playing ability is not clearly above these guys by any means. Yet neither received a fraction of the hype and adoration that Cade has garnered.
Cade has been compared to Ben Simmons with a jump shot, which is ridiculous since Simmons demolishes him in all 4 categories.
Cade has also been compared to a bigger James Harden, which is also comical since Harden destroys him in all 4 categories. And Harden also destroyed him in all 4 as a freshman when he was nearly a full year younger.
Athletic guards like Bradley Beal, John Wall, Derrick Rose, and Ja Morant topped him in all 4 categories and Markelle Fultz was only a hair behind in FT rate.
Jayson Tatum is the only player that Cade edges out in 2 categories with better assist to turnover and free throw rate by a hair each while being about half a year older. And unlike the rest of the list, Cade is not bigger or better at shooting than Tatum. And Tatum was not perceived as a can’t miss star entering the draft by any stretch.
Brandon Ingram has similar dimensions and was a full year younger than Cade trumping him at all categories except slightly lower free throw rate, and he still was bad at NBA basketball for 3 seasons before figuring it out.
Jaylen Brown is an outlier NCAA statistical overperformer, yet he still trumps Cade in 3 of 4 categories.
Cade was a better NCAA shooter than Tatum, Ingram, and Brown, but each of those three makes 38-40% NBA 3P– what are the odds that Cade is significantly better than them as a pro? He could be one of the all time great NBA shooters, but it’s very rare for high usage guys outside of Steph to make > 40% from 3.
OJ Mayo is a bit older than this group, but his statistical profile to highly similar to Cade. He dominated high school by being physically developed early, then showed up to NCAA with less athleticism than anticipated but still did fairly well by being an OK enough creator and knockdown shooter at 41% 3P 80% FT. If Cade is a bigger OJ Mayo, that’s a useful NBA player, but is it really a guy you take top 3?
Carmelo Anthony profiles similarly to Cade physically and stylistically as an iso scorer who relies on his jump shooting. But he crushes Cade on rebounds, with solidly better 2P% and assist:TOV while being 8 months younger and leading Syracuse to an NCAA title. Melo wasn’t the most efficient fellow in the NBA, so if Cade is a less efficient version of the same thing– is he really worth a top 3 pick?
The Limit of Shooting
While shooting is a vitally important part of basketball, it is its own skill in isolation and does not connect to other parts of the game. Especially not the physical or cerebral ones that lend themselves to greatness.
Players like Dirk and Durant have been able to dominate with shooting using their elite height and reach to get their shot off whenever they want. But Cade doesn’t have that same reach, and is going to need to rely on his basketball playing ability.
And if you watch him play, there are multiple issues that come up. He is not crafty or explosive enough to create many easy attempts for himself, and often bullies his way as close to the rim as possible until pulling up for a difficult contested shot.
While he is a willing passer who moves the ball in transition and sees the floor well, he is only a good but not great passer and detracts with turnovers as his loose handle often gets stripped and he frequently throws sloppy passes away.
He has a rudimentary approach to offense where he loves to spam the pass or shoot button without putting much thought into the quality of shot that ensues. In tandem with his loose handle, this leads to frequent turnovers for himself as well as his teammates who often receive his passes in difficult 1 on 2 situations.
These flaws would all be easier to forgive if he was more physically dominant, but he rebounds offensively as well as a small guard and gets to the line at an ordinary rate. He does not have the best motor or effort, and does not atone for his offensive mistakes with defensive dominance, and it is not clear that he is on track to become an above average defensive player in the NBA.
These sum to fairly significant flaws, and are not typical concerns for a top 3 pick let alone a consensus #1 overall.
Do the Numbers Reflect Reality?
To some extent he was in a suboptimal situation playing for a not so good NCAA coach surrounded by mostly defensive talent, but that is the case for most elite prospects. NCAA coaches and offenses are typically not good, but the true studs find a way to stuff the stat sheet anyhow.
There is some small possibility that he was affected by the pandemic, which caused him to underperform in the mental aspects of the game relative to his prior expectations. You would need to strongly believe that some combination of COVID and suboptimal situation dimmed his output to even think about him at #1.
But there is the other possibility that the guy has a basic operating system that was in effective in high school where he physically developed sooner than his peers and often was playing on all-star teams that could outrun everybody in transition. And now taking the step up to NCAA against guys physically closer to him, his limited basketball IQ is getting exposed. This is something that happens much more frequently to hyped prospects than having their talent hidden by poor NCAA situations, so it is the most likely explanation for his performance.
Also it is worth noting that if you want to give extra weight to his priors for other aspects, it is also worth considering he significantly outperformed his expectation as a shooter. If he shoots like his NCAA self and plays like his high school self he will be very good, but if he shoots like his high school self and plays like his NCAA self, he is going to be massively disappointing.
Is Cade Obviously Top 3 in this Draft?
Cade offers some major warts that are not typically stomached by top 3 picks, so why is beyond the shadow of a doubt in the top 3 in this draft? Because his shooting is THAT valuable? Because we are that certain that his situation dragged down his numbers in a way that has yet to happen with past top 3 picks? An explanation would be nice, because there is nothing on film or in his stat sheet that makes anything obvious other than he has a fairly easy path to a decent NBA starter.
But even that is far from a lock if he is going to be developed into a suckier Carmelo Anthony rather than a bigger Klay Thompson who provides elite 3 + D support.
Evan Mobley plays with a surgical precision in terms of his movement and decision making that obviously trumps Cade’s style of bludgeoning you to death with difficult shot attempts. He is hands down the better prospect.
It seems that some people have accepted that Mobley is better or it is close. But that’s where it ends. The idea that Cade might not be top 2 is a taboo idea in a world where prospects like RJ Barrett and Anthony Edwards were relentlessly bashed for warts arguably less significant than what Cade brings to the table.
Why do we need to take him over Jalen Suggs, who is cerebrally multiple tiers above Cade as well as more athletic and efficient? Cade is bigger and better at shooting, but it is not clear that this is more valuable.
Why do we need to take him above Scottie Barnes who is physically superior with slightly better dimensions, and far better offensive efficiency and defensive effort? Cade has a major shooting advantage and Barnes has nasty flaws in his defensive fundamentals that need improvement, but you are more likely to get a superstar from a guy like Barnes who needs to learn to shoot than a guy like Cade who can already shoot but needs to learn how to play.
Even after those guys, Franz Wagner offers pristine decision making and defensive play while having better dimensions than Cade and not being clearly worse at shooting. Cade had a better shooting signal this season, but Franz has made > 80% FT and taken a decent rate of 3PA since he was 16, and this is the first season that Cade did either.
Cade theoretically has more upside because of his creation that is less efficient than any top 3 pick basically ever. But why do we NEED to gamble on inefficient creation just in case it becomes efficient, especially in a non-elite athlete lacking a strong first step. They are the same age, and there is zero question that Franz is the better player right now. Per 100 stats:
2P
2PA
3P
3PA
FT
FTA
AST
TOV
Franz
5.9
10.5
2.3
6.8
4.4
5.3
5.6
2.4
Cade
6.5
14
3.6
8.9
7.6
8.9
5.4
6.2
You are basically stomaching an extra 3.8 Cade turnovers and 3.5 2PA than mostly brick for what? 2.1 more 3PA and 3.6 FTA? It’s not apples to apples since Michigan is a better offense with a better coach and Cade is playing a more difficult role, but come on now. Cade’s creation is mostly just more bricks and turnovers than Franz, and Franz is essentially a lock to be better defensively. If Cade isn’t a significantly better shooter who figures out how to navigate defenses that can match up with him athletically over time, he isn’t going to be a more useful NBAer than Franz.
I have already written about Cade’s numbers paling in comparison to those of Alperen Sengun, but let’s revisit since looking at their numbers side by side is so fascinating
Prospect
Age
eFG%
A:TO
OR%
FTr
Cade
19.3
0.515
0.86
2.3
0.39
Sengun
18.4
0.641
1.11
17.5
0.61
It is inherently more efficient to run offense through a perimeter ball handler like Cade rather than a post player like Sengun, but can anybody look at these numbers with a straight face and say that Cade is a clear favorite to be the better offensive player in the NBA?
And the crazy thing is Sengun isn’t even that far behind as a shooter and has superior steal and block rates. It is not clear who projects to be the better defensive player. Frankly is it not clear that Cade projects to be better at Sengun at anything outside of shooting, where Sengun could close the gap in time.
Wing Creators are Only Valuable when they are Good
There seems to be an assumption that because Cade was the #1 RSCI that he is an elite wing creator, and that all of his shortcomings can be attributed to bad teammates. But that is just not something that happens to prospects who are good enough to run an NBA offense based on every comparison that can be found in the past 20 years.
The most analogous prospect to Cade in terms of both distribution of strengths and weaknesses and playing situation is likely Khris Middleton. He played for Texas A&M who thrived on bully ball and defense, as their offense was driven by offensive rebounds and free throws with mediocre shot making and turnover rates during his sophomore season– much like Oklahoma State.
Prospect
Age
2P%
A:TO
OR%
FTr
Cade
19.3
0.461
0.86
2.3
0.39
Khris
19.4
0.492
1.04
8.2
0.418
Yet Middleton was slightly better across the board at the same age and still slid to round 2. This is in part because he was hidden by starting college early as a young freshman and battling injuries and bad 3P% variance as a junior when he missed 12 games and shot 26% behind the arc.
Cade was a much better NCAA shooter, but Middleton is a career 40% 3P, 88% FT shooter in the NBA, and it is not likely Cade is better by any significant margin.
But even based on his NBA success, he definitely was never a #1 overall talent. He is a highly useful secondary piece who provides a nice intersection of shooting, passing, and defense to be a low end all-star, but is only in the NBA finals because he is playing alongside 2x MVP Giannis.
And based on the numbers, Cade is a clear underdog to be as good as Middleton in the NBA. If you give extra weight to his priors and slightly better dimensions, then perhaps he is only a small underdog to be Middleton, but that is not the type of player you target at #1 overall.
This is especially true that when he is being drafted to be a primary creator instead of a complementary piece, which makes it more likely that he follows a suboptimal developmental path. This is what happened to Andrew Wiggins when he was overused as an inefficient high volume creator.
So when you are running the risk of getting a guy who is technically NBA caliber but somewhat gross to max like a different flavor of Andrew Wiggins, taller OJ Mayo, or less efficient Carmelo Anthony in the hopes of landing Khris Middleton or at best Jayson Tatum, but zero chance of Luka or Harden. That is not a guy who obviously belongs in the top 3, let alone #1 overall.
This Lottery is Good
It would be one thing to lock in Cade as #1 in a draft like last year where nobody really stood out in a sea of mediocrity. But this year has so many more interesting options at the top. Mobley is a legit #1 candidate, and then Suggs, Barnes, Franz, and Sengun are all nice consolation prizes.
Cade’s priors should count for something, especially in light of the pandemic adding randomness to the season. We cannot assume his NCAA performance was indicative of his precise self, so perhaps he is the correct #2 overall.
But at the same time, his NCAA warts were so nasty both on the stat sheet and on film, that it is difficult to treat his goodness with any certainty. It is simply not clear that he is one of the best 5 prospects in a talented lottery.
This may sound like a hot take at face value, but the only past top 3 pick who really shared his distribution of strengths and weaknesses was OJ Mayo, and he even pales in comparison to 2nd rounder Khris Middleton. So the real hot take is consensus’s idea that he is a clear #1 overall, as there is no information that even remotely supports the notion.
Trey Murphy has been skyrocketing up draft boards, rising from a largely unknown mid-major transfer from Rice last offseason to #21 overall in ESPN’s latest mock after an impressive junior season with Virginia.
At a glance, it is easy to see why. He shot 92.7% FT and 43.3% from 3 for the Cavs with a lightning quick release, he has excellent wing dimensions at 6’9″ with 7’0″ wingspan, and NBA athleticism with 23 dunks on the season out his total 32 made shots at the rim. He also seems to have good intangibles on top of checking some major boxes for a modern NBA 3 + D role player.
After seeing the success of Cam Johnson and Duncan Robinson, it makes sense why he would be an appetizing target after the high upside lottery picks are off the table.
But he also comes with some frustrating warts which makes him enigmatic. He is extremely skinny, and in spite of his dimensions and athleticism he rebounds like a guard. He also has close to zero ball skills, and is almost a complete non-threat to attack off the dribble.
Now one may say– who care if he creates? You can have your guards create shots for him and he will provide elite spacing gravity to help them out. But it isn’t that simple. In the last 5 possessions of Virginia’s 1 point loss to Duke, he was guarded by Duke’s worst defensive player 6’1″ Jeremy Roach. Virginia didn’t even attempt to attack the possible mismatch once, and they struggled to create offense, scoring only 2 points in the final 5 possessions.
This raises the question– how valuable is his spacing gravity if he cannot even exploit a mismatch by a bad defensive NCAA PG? If his shooting is going to turn games into a 4 on 4 minus the other team’s worst defensive player, that negates much of the value of his shooting ability.
The other concern is that whether he can actually hang defensively in the NBA. He is mobile and active, but Virginia often tries to hide him on the worst opposing offensive player. Which may seem OK since Virginia has historically elite defenses, but this is the first time in 8 years that they had a defense rated lower than #7 in Kenpom as they dropped all the way to #36 overall with more offensive minded personnel.
Before anybody drafts Murphy in round 1, they need to seriously consider the risk that he is bad at all aspects of the game other than shooting. How sharp can it be to draft a prospect in round 1 who as an NCAA junior often matched up with the opponents’ worst offensive player AND worst defensive player?
Of course, this doesn’t mean that Murphy can’t eventually become a useful NBA player. Let’s compare him to Duncan Robinson and Cam Johnson at similar ages:
Age
USG
ORtg
OR%
DR%
AST%
STL%
BLK%
Duncan
21.7
17.4
123.6
2.5
12.1
12.1
1.3
1.2
Cam
20.8
16.4
120.7
2.5
12.8
14.4
1.7
1
Trey
20.5
17.3
127.9
2.8
11.7
8.2
1.8
1.8
They are all very similar, and we definitely cannot rule out Murphy becoming that level of role player. But if there is one signal that enabled Cam and Duncan to make it in the NBA that may preclude Murphy, it’s their relatively significant advantages in assist rate indicating superior ball skills. Even though they are not often asked to create off the dribble, being able to attack closeouts and exploit mismatches is a crucial baseline skill to function in an NBA offense, and there is some clear risk that Murphy is so poor at this that it detracts from all of the positive value his shooting offers.
Both Duncan and Cam stayed for two more years, and Cam continued to improve while Duncan saw a dip in both his rebound and assist rates, as he was relegated to more of a spot up role once Michigan improved their creation in the backcourt. So it is not clear that Robinson is a better prospect than Murphy, as Trey could feasibly catch up to his ball skills in time. But Robinson also went undrafted for good reason, as there was no clear signal that he would be a useful NBA player at the time.
Further, Murphy’s assist rate for mid-major Rice was a paltry 8.5% last season, so he cannot share the excuse that he was surrounded by too much offensive talent to show off his creation ability. He needs to improve, possibly by a significant margin.
Collectively, it’s difficult to make the case that Murphy is on the same level of prospect of Cam Johnson. And even though it worked out, it still can be questioned whether Johnson was an intelligent gamble at #11 overall. He hit his absolute upside and is still just the 7th man for Phoenix, and hardly an integral piece to their playoff run.
Duncan Robinson’s level of goodness seems more clearly attainable for Murphy, and even then it’s worth questioning how good exactly that may be. Robinson looked like an UDFA steal last season making an otherworldly 44.6% from 3, this season after dropping to an ordinary level of elite at 40.8%, it is not clear that he is more than an ordinary rotation player.
And without many examples of similar one dimensional shooters making themselves useful NBA players, there is the substantial risk that Murphy is outright busts like everybody imagined Duncan Robinson would.
If we say Murphy’s range of outcomes is likely somewhere on the scale of bust to being a role player on the level of a one of a kind UDFA, is that really worth investing a first round pick?
Who is the real stretch 4 sleeper?
It is interesting that a mid-major transfer is getting first round hype, while there is a similar prospect projected to late in round 2 at #55 who was a former 5* recruit: Matthew Hurt.
Hurt’s stock suffers because of his limited physical tools, as he is below average in quickness and athleticism, and measured with a wingspan equal to his height at 6’9.5″. He also has a doughy physique with 15.2% body fat, and physically does not look the part of NBA player. But him and Trey have some strong similarities in statistical output:
Age
USG
ORtg
OR%
DR%
AST%
STL%
BLK%
Trey
20.5
17.3
127.9
2.8
11.7
8.2
1.8
1.8
Hurt
20.6
21
130.1
5.3
17.1
8.6
1.3
2.1
Hurt’s big advantage here are competent rebounding and a semblance of offensive creation ability. His offense off the dribble is largely based on mid-range pullups and turnarounds, which is not the most exciting offense. But he nevertheless shot a higher 2P% than Murphy (63.9% vs 62%) on approximately double the 2PA, and has shown he can at least do something to punish the opponent if they try to hide an undersized guard on him.
Murphy is no doubt the better shooter. Hurt has the higher career 3P% (42.1 vs 40.1) but Murphy has a better 3PA/100 (12.3 vs 9.3) and FT% (81.9 vs 73.7) as well as a quicker release. But if Hurt is a bigger threat to attack off the dribble, and can sustain a similar efficiency on higher usage, it is difficult to argue that he is not the superior offensive prospect collectively.
Defensively, Hurt’s lack of physical tools could make him a major liability and keep him off the NBA court. But he is a better rebounder than Murphy, less liable to get pushed around, and is also a higher IQ defensive player as he has better awareness and understands how to position himself to contain penetration better. He definitely won’t be a good defensive player, but he has some chance of becoming passable on that end.
If we are comparing the two defensively, it’s fuzzy and unclear who will be better between Hurt or Murphy. Both guys have a range of unplayably bad to passable. Perhaps it is right to give Murphy the edge based on his 2.5″ better length and athleticism and mobility, as he could close the gap on Hurt’s defensive IQ but Hurt is always going to be limited physically. It stands to reason he has more outs to land on the passable side of the spectrum.
But it’s difficult to make Murphy any more than a slight fave to be better on defense with all of his warts, whereas Hurt’s case to be offensively superior is a bit more clear.
Ultimately it is fairly close between the two. Both guys have a shot of becoming useful rotation players, and neither guy is going to be a star. But it is difficult to make a clear case for Murphy being the better prospect, so why expend a first round pick on him if Hurt can be had in mid-late round 2 or possibly even UDFA?
It’s great to land a Duncan Robinson out of nowhere, and Murphy is live to be just as good. But it seems like an unnecessarily risky proposition to use a first rounder on him when Duncan himself was UDFA and we have shooting prospects like Hurt and Joe Wieskamp (#54 ESPN) projected in the late 2nd this year.
UPDATE— After typing this out, it’s tough to be convinced that Murphy is really good or bad. These are all decent reasons to be skeptical, but it is difficult to compare him to a negative example to offset the Duncan Robinson and Cam Johnson comps.
The fact of the matter is that guys who are 6’9″, elite at shooting, and not slow as molasses are exceptionally difficult to find. Perhaps that is the right intersection of strengths, and having a good defensive IQ or being able to beat NCAA defenses off the dribble or rebound at the high major level are all trivial relative to the rare intersection of strengths.
Ultimately there is no reason to have any conviction that Murphy is not a 1st round prospect, and I ended up ranking him significantly above Hurt on my final big board. I was tempted to delete this article because I didn’t agree with my own conclusion after taking a few days to digest it all, but I have never deleted anything from the site and there are still valid reasons to be cautious in valuing Murphy, regardless of whether he hits his upside or not.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22443552/usa_today_15727952.jpg)
Dean On Draft 