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.
Most of these guys are going to amount for nothing, but just for fun I am going to take a stab at some deep sleepers who were not invited to the combine that nobody is talking about. I excluded Gary Clark who is widely considered a snub, and am focusing on players who are actively underrated in my estimation.
1) Xavier Cooks 6’8″ SF/PF Winthrop
Cooks is the ultimate unicorn of under the radar players. I doubt there was ever an undrafted player who can handle, pass, rebound, and protect the rim like he can. He is not super athletic, but he has a nice first step and is highly cerebral, which enables him to stuff the stat sheet at his height.
In the past 8 NCAA seasons, here are the players who had 15%+ TRB, 16%+ AST, 3%+ BLK, were 6’6″+ and had at least 10 possessions as a PnR Handler (per synergy):
This includes two first round picks, an all-time round 2 steal, and Cooks. And he runs the pick and roll far more often than any of them with quite a few more blocks. This is arguably a product of playing against low major competition, but there are no other low or mid major players in his stratosphere. He is an incredibly rare prospect.
Cooks’ biggest flaw is efficiency. He posted a weak 103 ORtg as a senior against low major competition, which is a major flag. But his passing was good enough to help balance the scales. Here are his senior synergy efficiency percentiles as a scorer vs. scoring + passes:
%ile
%ile including passes
PnR
77%
91%
Iso
41%
70%
Post-up
88%
90%
His splits plus passes are likely bolstered by luck to some extent, but it is easy to see how he may offer enough value to overcome his efficiency woes. Also worth noting that Winthrop had a monstrous split with him on the court vs. off.
His other issue is that he may not be able to shoot. His career 68% FT 35% 3P inspires hope, but he has an ugly tornado form that reminisces of Joakim Noah.
Cooks has incredibly outlier strengths for a player that will likely go undrafted. His shooting and efficiency woes will be his undoing as a pro fairly often, but he is absolutely worth a summer league flier and 2 way contract. I would even take him in the 2nd round.
2) DJ Hogg 6’9″ SF/PF Texas A&M (ESPN: #66)
Hogg is a not great athlete with relatively short arms (6’10.5″ wingspan) who averaged a modest 11 points and 5 rebounds per game as a junior, so it is easy to write him off at a glance. But there are reasons for optimism:
At 6’9″ he is a big wing, which is quickly becoming the prototypical PF mold. He has good vision and is a good shooter, and enough athleticism to average nearly a block per game. This is an excellent baseline for a 3 + D prospect.
The problem is that his overall scoring and rebounding leaves much to be desired, but there are a number of factors stifling his production:
He was forced to play the 3 with Texas A&M rotating three bigs– he would have been a 4 on almost any other team
He had the worst coach of any major conference player
He had the worst PG of any major conference player
His creation is nevertheless a flag for even a 3 + D role player, as he rarely even attacked closeouts. But for a player with such a good baseline of role player abilities, there could be a nice payoff if he translates well to a more favorable environment.
3) Vince Edwards 6’8″ SF/PF Purdue (ESPN: #72)
All Edwards did in 4 years at Purdue was win win win no matter what. He was an instant contributor from his freshman year, and the Boilermakers were a mainstay at the top of the Big Ten standings during his tenure.
He is 6’8″ and can rebound, pass, and is a great shooter with 39% 3P and 82% FT over his career. He also can handle a bit, which puts him in a mold that has an incredibly easy path to success as a pro.
His main question is whether he has the quickness and athleticism to defend at the NBA level. Given his size, IQ, and skill level it is worth gambling that he can in the 2nd round.
4) Desi Rodriguez 6’5″ SG/SF Seton Hall
Rodriguez had an interesting career arc at Seton Hall. As a freshman he was a pest on defense and a beast on the glass, but too raw to contribute much offensively. Over time he added polish to his skill level, and his steals and rebounds declined as his offensive role grew.
His shot is a bit of a question mark, but at 37% 3P and 74% FT as a senior he has improved enough to have potential. And his 6’10” wingspan and strong frame gives him potential to switch onto bigger players.
Desi’s ability to provide secondary creation ties everything together. It is a common misperception that 3 + D players only need to make 3’s and play defense. Low usage NCAA players have a terrible NBA track record for a reason. Competent shot creation is a necessity for even low usage NBA role players, as players who cannot punish the defense on easy scoring opportunities are major offensive liabilities.
In the NBA he will likely mirror his freshman role where he can focus on defense and rebounding, while his performance as a junior and senior proves that he has the offensive competence to succeed in a low usage NBA role. If he can combine the best of both worlds and develop into a reliable shooter, he should be a useful NBA role player.
5) Zach Thomas 6’7″ SF/PF Bucknell
Thomas offers passing, rebounding, and shooting with ideal wing size and good feel for the game. He has a shot distribution that would make James Harden blush, as he attempts an inordinate amount of threes and free throws. And he has a solid frame and athleticism to give him a chance of translating to higher levels.
An encouraging point is that he scored an efficient 27 points in 29 minutes against Michigan State in the tournament before fouling out.
6) Desonta Bradford 6’4″ SG East Tennessee St.
Bradford has a Tyler Johnson-ish profile, as he did it all for a very good ETSU team as a junior and senior. He is a bit undersized for a SG at 6’4″, but he makes up for it with excellent athleticism.
He does not quite match Johnson’s elite NCAA efficiency, but is nevertheless a solid flier. There are not many better UDFA gambles than an athletic mid-major star.
7) Chima Moneke 6’6″ SF/PF UC Davis
At a glance Moneke does not seem like a prospect, as he is an undersized chucking PF who posted a 1:3 assist:TOV ratio in 2 years at UC Davis and is now 22 years old.
But he is very athletic, excellent on the glass, has good steal and block rates, and UC Davis defense was great with him on the floor and significantly declined with him off both years.
Moneke has a workable shot– he made 67% FT and 9/23 3P in his 2 years at Davis. He has also been able to score in his two games against elite major conferences defenses– posting 24 points on 10/15 shooting vs Ivab Rabb’s Cal team and 20 points on 8/13 vs Kansas in the tournament.
Moneke needs to develop an NBA 3, become a more willing passer, and successfully convert to the perimeter. This is a bit of a longshot parlay, but the baseline talent is there and how can you not love that headband + goggles combo?
8) Bryant Crawford 6’3″ PG Wake Forest
Crawford has solid PG tools, as he measured 6’3.5″ with a 6’6″ wingspan in 2014 and has solid strength and athleticism. He has good vision, can create off the dribble, and his 83% FT as sophomore and 87% as a junior conveys excellent shooting potential.
His only weakness is that he doesn’t have a major strength. All of his tools are decent but not great, and the same can be said for his basketball IQ and skill level. But if he develops well, he has an easy path to NBA rotation guard.
9) Jordan McLaughlin 6’1″ PG USC
Small point guards are weird. Often times the most highly touted ones fail to translate to the pros, but occasionally a stud role player like Fred VanVleet goes undrafted.
After Jevon Carter (who was invited to the combine), McLaughlin is the best shot at a FVV level UDFA steal in this crop. He is a good shooter with elite floor vision, and an uncanny ability to be a pest on defense (77th best steal rate in NCAA) without fouling (6th lowest foul rate).
He overall had a less impressive career than FVV, but McLaughlin’s senior year breakout offers enough intrigue for the speedy PG to be a nice undrafted flier.
10) Malik Pope 6’10” SF/PF San Diego St.
Chad Ford stanned so ridiculously hard for Pope as a possible top 10 pick that it became a running joke, especially without him ever putting it all together over his 4 year career.
But even if Ford’s optimism was highly unwarranted, there were non-trivial reasons to like him. There are not many 6’10” athletes with even possibly enough skill to play the wing, and Pope is still only 21 on draft night.
He never developed well enough to be truly exciting, but it is worth seeing if an NBA coach can find a way to get more out of Pope than he showed as San Diego State.
10 players I would disinvite from the combine to take a closer look at these guys: Malik Newman, George King, Allonzo Trier, Justin Jackson, Brian Bowen, Billy Preston, Austin Wiley, Devon Hall, Tyus Battle, Kostas Antetokounmpo
Zhaire Smith is one of the most unique prospects in the draft. He came out of nowhere to perform as one of the best freshmen in the NCAA in spite of being a 3* recruit. Let’s dive into his profile to estimate what to expect from him as a pro.
Profile
In spite of his 6’4″ height, he played like a power forward, using his nuclear athleticism to finish powerful dunks on cuts and putbacks. He also showcased his defensive potential by leading the #4 NCAA defense in both steals and blocks, and showed solid instincts for a young athletic freak.
He is limited offensively, as his shot and handle are a work in progress. But his 1.8 assists vs 1.1 turnovers indicates good feel for the game. While he has a slow release on his shot, his form is good and his 72% FT conveys decent shooting potential for an 18 year old.
The main concern is that he is a 6’4″ guard who showed limited ability to handle and create his own shot, and teams will be afraid of using a high lottery pick on his archetype.
Physical Comps:
Here are the recent prospects who have the most similar dimensions, athleticism, and NCAA statistical production to Zhaire.
Height
Length
Weight
Westbrook
6’3.5
6’7.75
192
Mitchell
6’3
6’10
211
Oladipo
6’4.25
6’9.25
213
Zhaire
6’4
6’9.75
199
LaVine
6’5.75
6’8.25
181
Shumpert
6’5.5
6’9.5
222
There’s a case to be made that Zhaire has the best physical profile of the bunch. He’s in the same tier of athleticism as Westbrook and LaVine but with better size. And the > 200 pound guys are all ~2 years older, he will likely weigh a similar amount by then and is likely more athletic than any of them.
Granted, athleticism is tricky to measure. There is no numerical way to pin it down, and it comes in various forms– first step, one foot leaping, two foot leaping, quickness, body control, etc. But to my eye Zhaire has special athleticism for two reasons
The linked highlights are of impossible dunks that I cannot recall another player approximating. Zhaire has an uncanny ability to get way up while controlling his body to be able to smoothly finish from awkward positions.
But He Can’t Dribble!
To demonstrate how his handling ability compares to other players at the same age, I combined synergy iso and PnR handler stats into possessions used per 40 minutes and points per possession. And for a frame of reference, I threw in 2017’s elite scoring prospects to show how much top lead guard prospects normally produce as NCAA freshmen (and young sophomore Westbrook):
Age
Poss/40
PPP
DSJ
19.1
10.3
0.85
Fultz
18.6
10.0
0.95
Fox
19.0
8.8
0.88
Mitchell
19.3
3.8
0.73
LaVine
18.8
3.1
0.61
RWB
19.1
2.4
0.72
VO
18.7
2.0
0.86
Zhaire
18.6
1.8
0.64
Shump
18.5
5.5
0.58
Zhaire has the lowest volume of this group and lower efficiency than everybody but LaVine and Shumpert. But his physical comps were all in the same tier of non-scorer at the same age, as you can see relative to the actual scoring prospects who crush the raw athlete wings in both volume and efficiency.
Westbrook set the record for highest single season NBA usage rate with above average efficiency. Oladipo scored 23 points/game in 17-18 with above average efficiency. Mitchell scored 24 pts/game in the playoffs as a rookie. LaVine went from worst player in the NBA as a rookie to solidly efficient scorer in his 3rd season.
Beyond the numbers, DraftExpress expressed doubt about the limited ball handling of both Victor Oladipo and Russell Westbrook.
The point is clear– a limited handle at a young age does not limit NBA scoring upside for a nuclear athlete with good basketball IQ and combo guard dimensions.
Zhaire is slightly behind his peers at this stage, but he is nevertheless showed flashes of impressive creation ability and easily roasted Mo Bamba twice. Perhaps he does not share the same creation success as the aforementioned comps, but he has enough baseline ability to build on.
So How Good Will Zhaire Be?
It is important to note that I did not try to cherrypick the most successful NBA players for this comparison. Shumpert and LaVine were my best attempts at comps that did not wildly succeed as pros, and they are both above median mid-1st round picks. And LaVine was clearly well below the group statistically as an NCAA player.
The intersection of elite athleticism and NCAA statistical production rarely fails, and often yields a high upside. It’s hard to find a truly pessimistic comp.
The only catch is that Zhaire is stylistically different than these comps. He was the tallest player on his high school team and often played center, which explains why he slid through the cracks as a recruit. This reflects in his Texas Tech performance where he played more like a garbageman PF than a guard.
Who Does He Actually Play Like?
Zhaire is statistically most similar to a pair of 4″ taller players: freshman Otto Porter and junior Jimmy Butler. Per 100 possession stats:
Age
PTS
2P%
3PA
FT%
AST
TOV
Otto
18.6
20.7
61.1
3.4
0.702
3.3
2.4
Zhaire
18.6
23.2
57.4
2.2
0.717
3.7
2.3
Jimmy
20.3
26.6
53.4
1.7
0.766
3.6
2.1
The similarities are uncanny as the offensive output is nearly identical. Jimmy did a bit more than the other two being older, but it worth noting I chose his best NCAA season as he slightly regressed as a senior.
STL
BLK
TRB
Otto
2.4
1.7
14.5
Zhaire
2.3
2.3
10.3
Jimmy
2.4
1.1
11.5
Otto + Jimmy show their superior size with better rebound rates, but Zhaire shows his superior athleticism with a better block rate.
Efficiency translates well to the NBA when it comes with the necessary physical tools to succeed. Even though Zhaire is 4″ shorter, his athleticism, length, and strength should make up for it.
Bottom Line
Zhaire is a weird prospect. He plays like a hybrid of Otto Porter and Jimmy Butler in Russell Westbrook’s body. I am not sure what that will amount to in the NBA, but I would bet it is good and it might be really awesome.
Of course this is looking at him through a rose colored lens that assumes he will develop reasonably well. If his shot, handle, and defensive instincts do not develop well, he could be an awkward role player who is not particularly useful. But the same can be said for any prospect who isn’t a #1 overall candidate.
History tells when things go well for nuclear athletes, they tend to go extremely well. Zhaire already made teams pay for sleeping on him as a recruit, now the same may happen in the draft as ESPN currently projects him to go 16th overall. I rate him as an obvious top 10 prospect in the draft with a strong case for top 5.
Everybody loves Trae Young, as he is a skill wizard that reminisces of Steph Curry.
But he is not Steph, and I have expressed this sentiment in a data driven analysis of his team’s performance. But since not everybody is into data, let’s key in on qualitative factors that are being overlooked:
1) He is really, really small
Trae measured just 6’1.75″ in shoes with a 6’3″ wingspan at the combine. This is shorter than Steve Nash, Steph Curry, and Chauncey Billups who are all listed at 6’3″.
The vast majority of good players listed at 6’2″ or less have had elite athleticism on their side. Chris Paul, Kemba Walker, Mike Conley, Kyle Lowry, Tony Parker, and Ty Lawson were all described as elite athletes in pre-draft scouting reports at DraftExpress.
Trae may have underrated quickness and speed, but nobody believes it is top shelf. He is in a physical tier where nobody has been elite.
The only player who *maybe* had similar physical limitations and excelled was John Stockton. He is before my time, and I do not have a strong grasp on his athleticism. But for the sake of argument we will say he is physically similar to Trae. Except there is one key difference
2) Trae’s Defense Is Awful
John Stockton was a 5 time NBA all-defense selection. If you are 6’1″ without freakish athleticism, you need to make a positive impact in every possible way to sum to elite production. And Trae is downright abysmal on defense, where it is not clear that he even cares to get stops.
He is probably going to be the worst defensive player in the NBA as a rookie, and there is not a ton of room for improvement. His physical profile makes his defense risky enough even with good effort, and he has such a low starting point it is hard to see him ever becoming decent on this end.
If Trae is 3 or 4 points worse than Stockton or Curry on D, that puts a ton of pressure on his offense to merely achieve goodness, let alone greatness.
3) Will he perform better in a smaller role with less of an offensive burden?
He played AAU with the Porter bros Michael and Jontay, and did not show clearly better efficiency in a more limited offensive role. He also shot poorly playing for Team USA in FIBA u18 championship in 2016, as well as the Nike Global Challenge in 2015.
There is some possibility that he lacks the basketball IQ to be an efficient scorer in a medium usage role. He appears to be an extremely skilled chucker who was able to succeed early in his Oklahoma career when he was hot against soft defenses.
Maybe he can learn to be more efficient over time, but based on current information there is limited reason for optimism.
4) Trae fell off a cliff vs better defenses
Most of statistical goodness came against soft defenses. When he faced good defenses his production fell off a cliff. Compare Trae’s per 40 stats vs. top 60 defenses to Steph Curry’s 5 career NCAA tournament games:
Pts
eFG%
AST
TOV
Opp DRtg
Steph
33.6
56.3%
3.6
1.9
89.5
Trae
27.7
47.7%
7.9
6.3
95.8
People commonly lament the attention Trae drew from defenses, but Steph got the same attention vs much tougher defenses in the tournament and he shined.
These splits were a signal that Steph had some cerebral advantage to translate his goodness to higher levels while Trae did the opposite. It would be a good idea to stop making this comp forever.
5) Is Trae a High IQ Passer?
Trae has excellent vision, and Chris Stone made a reasonable case that he made a positive effect on his teammates. But the vast majority on his effect came on Brady Manek– a 3* recruit who was much better than expected and happened to specialize in offense. Once you give most of the credit for Manek’s performance to Manek, Trae’s effect on his teammates is only slightly positive.
When you factor in his high turnover rate, and his inability to punish defenses for the insane attention he saw, it’s hard to argue that Trae is an elite passing prospect.
Trae’s passing was good this year, and he could eventually blossom into great. But there is no clear signal that he is a historically elite passer (as I argued for Lonzo Ball last year).
If Trae merely becomes an 85th percentile passing point guard in the NBA, he will likely stick in the league. But it will not be enough to be great in spite of his disadvantages. He needs to be a crazy outlier in this regard, and the early signals say that he is probably not.
6) Is He Actually An Elite Shooter?
Trae has never shot above 36% from 3 at any level. Just in case you needed another reason to know why it is a bad idea to compare him to a player who makes 44% of his NBA 3’s at a high volume.
Part of this is due to awful shot selection and poor size, and he has some non-zero chance of becoming the 2nd best shooter in NBA history. But he has a long way to go, and his shooting may always be undermined by his inability to get clean looks.
7) Does Trae deserve excuses?
It’s amazing how commonly people excuse Trae’s flaws by explaining how bad his teammates were and how many triple teams he saw.
These type of excuses should be reserved for an elite talent like DeAndre Ayton who is so physically gifted that he has significant margin of error for his NBA success.
Trae Young is in a physical tier where almost nobody succeeds in the NBA and he needs to be essentially *perfect* to be great. Yet he has the following flaws:
–Doesn’t play defense
–Awful shot selection
–No history of efficient play
–Struggles to get shot off against tough opponents
–No clear positive effect on his teammates’ performance
His skill and vision is rare enough such that he can nevertheless find an NBA niche. But does he actually sound like a player that is an intelligent gamble in the high lottery?
Bottom Line
I don’t see a path to him sniffing Steph Curry’s level of goodness. Maybe he can become a low end all-star like the Dallas version of Steve Nash, but he needs a ton to go right for that to happen. If he falls short of Nash, he is going to be a difficult fit into a good starting lineup. He can be a bench microwave, but as lead guard his team will have limited playoff upside.
The realistic upside comp for him is Isaiah Thomas. IT drew some MVP chatter for his box score stats in Boston, but ultimately did not help the offense drastically more than he hurt the defense, translated poorly to the playoffs, and the Celtics became a better team after parting ways with him. That is not a player worth targeting in the lottery– Thomas slid to last pick in the draft for good reason.
In reality, Trae will likely be worse than Thomas. As special as his vision and skill are, he has even more qualities that are especially bad to drag them down.
He has such a weird and polarized profile, it is difficult to say exactly where he should rate. He has some non-trivial value. But there is currently too much wishful thinking that he may be Steph, and I would bet that anybody who drafts him in the top 10 will be disappointed with the result.
Jaren Jackson Jr. is currently rated as the #4 prospect by ESPN. He is perceived as more of an elite role player than a true star with the upside of Luka Doncic or DeAndre Ayton, so let’s explore the validity of this narrative.
Physical Profile
JJJ measured 6’10” with a 7’4″ wingspan at Nike Hoop Summit at age 17, and he complements his strong dimensions with great mobility and athleticism. He is currently a bit skinny, but he has a nice frame that should fill out in time.
The only real flaw with his tools is that he’s not elite athletically, as he is more explosive in space than in traffic. But for an elite shot blocker, he covers a ton of ground defensively.
JJJ has a unique ability to both protect the rim and switch onto the perimeter. His physical profile is overall excellent, as it gives him endless defensive upside.
Skill Level
It’s difficult to predict NBA shooting from a small sample of stats, but JJJ’s shooting indicators are excellent for an 18 year old big. He shot 40% from 3 and 80% FT in a smallish NCAA sample and 40% on 84 3PA pre-NCAA according to DraftExpress (RIP).
His form is a slightly awkward push shot so these percentages should be taken with a grain of salt. But he also has a reasonably quick release, and there is some chance that he is a legitimately good shooter.
It remains to be seen how well he shoots from NBA 3 range. But for a big with JJJ’s tools, having even a serviceable shot is highly valuable.
Further, he shows budding ball skills as he can attack from the perimeter off the dribble with surprising shiftiness and a good first step. He is still raw and often turned it over when he tried to attack, but his slashing potential is elite for an 18 year old big.
It’s hard to predict where his skill level will peak on the scale of decent to great, but he has rare skill potential for a toolsy, defensive minded big.
IQ and Instincts
This past season Michigan State was nearly impossible to score on inside the arc, posting by far the best defensive 2P% in the NCAA. Here’s how they compared to stingiest interiors in kenpom’s database going back to 2002:
Year
Team
Def 2P%
NCAA Avg
Difference
2018
Michigan St.
38.4%
50.0%
11.6%
2015
Texas
37.7%
47.8%
10.1%
2017
UCF
39.9%
49.3%
9.4%
2004
Uconn
38.7%
48.0%
9.3%
2014
UC Irvine
39.2%
48.5%
9.3%
Texas boasted Myles Turner and fringe big prospects Cam Ridley, Prince Ibeh, and Jonathan Holmes. UCF and UC Irvine each had a 7’6″ big against mid-major schedules. UConn had four (!!!) first round bigs: Emeka Okafor, Charlie Villanueva, Josh Boone, Hilton Armstrong.
All of these past outliers had some unique interior presence(s), and Michigan State is by far the biggest outlier of the bunch. Their performance can in part be attributed to a wealth of quality bigs and never gambling for turnovers, but JJJ was the clear star of the show accounting for 42% of the team’s blocks. And unlike these other defenses being anchored largely by giant statues, JJJ is actually able to defend the perimeter as he led his team in steal rate.
Much of his dominance was due to his his tremendous close out speed, but these indicators are decisively positive indicators for his IQ. He has sharp instincts, excellent timing on blocks, and appears to be an intelligent defensive player who rarely yielded quality shot attempts near the rim.
Given that individual stats, team stats, and the eye test all paint a favorable picture for JJJ, optimism for his basketball IQ is warranted. But he was not perfect, as he was foul prone on defense and turnover prone on offense. And his rebound rate was slightly underwhelming, so there is no guarantee that he is cerebrally elite.
Perhaps the fouls and turnovers are a product of youth that will become a distant memory with more experience, or maybe they indicate some flaw that will never fully go away. Maybe the rebounds were a product of playing in a supersized lineup with a not yet developed frame, or maybe his toughness and motor are slightly lacking. These questions are difficult to answer with any confidence.
To some extent we are guessing how intelligent and instinctual a player is based on limited information. This is a major part of the variance in draft predictions. But in JJJ’s case we have a unique clue to work with: his father’s NBA career
Chip Off the Old Block?
Jaren Jackson Sr. didn’t even start in his first three seasons at Georgetown, averaging 7, 11, and 18 minutes per game respectively. As a senior he finally averaged 27 minutes and cracked double digit scoring for the first time to finish his 4 year career with averages of 16.5 minutes, 7.5 points, 2.9 rebounds, and 1.2 assists.
Then he unsurprisingly went undrafted, and did not play more than garbage minutes in his first 7 NBA seasons. At age 29, he finally earned his first consistent rotation role playing 15 mins/game for Washington.
Then Jackson moved on to San Antonio where he became a part-time starter for 3 years, and played a significant role in their 1999 championship run. He brought almost nothing to the table outside of shooting and defense, but he did so effectively, as he rated as slightly positive by both BPM and RAPM metrics as one of the original 3 + D role players.
At 6’4″ with limited athleticism and skill, Jackson is one of the least talented players to ever become useful in the NBA. He couldn’t get real minutes in college, couldn’t get drafted, and couldn’t get real NBA minutes for 7 years, but he nevertheless found a way to positively contribute to a champion.
Jaren Sr. must have had subtle but significant cerebral and intangible advantages that the basketball world failed to discern until he crossed paths with Gregg Popovich.
What Does This Mean For Jaren Jr.?
While there is no guarantee that Jaren Jr. shares these advantages, he should be considered more likely than average to have the overachiever gene. After all, 50% of his genetics came from a extreme overachiever at professional basketball. And the other half of his genes came from a basketball mom, making him 7″ taller, more athletic, and more skilled than his dad.
Even without considering his father’s career, JJJ is legitimate candidate for #1 overall. If this point has no bearing on his career, he can easily be a perennial all-star similar to Chris Bosh. And if he overachieves as much as his father did, he has potential to be a Kevin Garnett level generational star.
It’s difficult to say exactly how much weight should be given to Jaren Sr’s career, but it is a nice cherry on top of a highly attractive profile. If it carries any serious gravity, the payoff for drafting JJJ will be immense.
I believe it is correct to place some positive skew on JJJ’s range of outcomes based on his genetics. If nothing else it is yet another positive point to add to the endless list of reasons to be optimistic for his NBA future.
Bottom Line
JJJ is not excellent athletically like Ayton nor is he skilled as Doncic, but he has a nice blend of both on top of possibly elite IQ and intangibles. His talent level is excellent and highly underrated.
It makes sense that he would be underrated, as IQ and youth are commonly overlooked and he is among the youngest and smartest players in this draft.
And to cap it off he doesn’t have any frightening warts. His shooting form is slightly funky, and there is some dependence on him progressing his somewhat raw skills at a reasonable rate. But compare that with the flaws of other recent elite prospects
DeAndre Ayton– Appears to be completely lost on defense Luka Doncic– Lacks burst + shake to get past defense, will rely heavily on shotmaking as pro Lonzo Ball— Major flags in his handling and shooting for a guard who is non-elite athlete Markelle Fultz— Shaky FT% and his NCAA team was awful Ben Simmons— Broken shot, awful NCAA team, intangible flags Karl-Anthony Towns— Too slow to be good defensively Joel Embiid— Major health concerns. Also late basketball starting age may inhibit his ability to score efficiently as a pro the same way it is difficult to learn a second language if you do not start as a child
JJJ arguably has the least off-putting warts of the group. And his team defense and genetics are compelling reasons to be optimistic for his NBA upside. From almost every angle of analysis, he is dripping with goodness.
Ultimately I rate Jaren Jackson Jr. as the best prospect of the past 6 years. It’s not by a big margin, as Luka Doncic could also be argued to be the best recent prospect and Ayton is not that far behind either. But JJJ at least belongs in the #1 conversation, and letting him slide out of the top 3 would be nothing short of a historic draft blunder.
The 2018 draft has some good 3 + D wings outside of the top 10 such as Mikal Bridges, Miles Bridges, Troy Brown, and Jacob Evans. But nobody is talking about Josh Okogie, who is only ranked #46 on ESPN and may be the gem of the class
Why Does He Have No Hype?
Because he plays for an awful Georgia Tech team. He didn’t get many high major offers as he wasn’t a top 100 recruit, so he settled for the major conference team close to home.
It’s easy to see why he wasn’t a top 100 recruit. He is super young for his class, and was less developed than his high school peers. He is only 6’4″, not super athletic, and not a big time shot creator. He doesn’t check the most easily discernible boxes, so it makes sense that recruiting services would overlook him.
Before his freshman year, Georgia Tech was considered a threat to go 0-18 in ACC play by stat models, common narratives, and yours truly. But 18 year old Okogie and junior Ben Lammers led them to the #6 kenpom defense, a respectable 8-10 ACC record, and a trip to the NIT finals. They deserve a parade for this, as the Yellow Jackets were one of the biggest overachievers in the 16-17 NCAA season.
As a sophomore the Jackets took a small step back, but that can be in part blamed on his coach, cast, and bad luck. Overall Okogie’s two years at Georgia Tech were a huge success given the circumstances.
Defense
Okogie’s physical profile is overall terrific, as he has a 7’0″ wingspan and a strong frame to go along with above average athleticism and good quickness.
His length and strength give him ability to guard NBA wings, and his quickness gives him the ability to defend guards. With the tools to hold his own against any position 1-4, he has elite versatility in heavily switching defenses that are prevalent in the modern NBA.
He is also disruptive as a team defender, as he uses his length effortlessly to deflect passes and block shots.
Granted, he is not guaranteed to be a lockdown defensive player. He is mistake prone as he makes unnecessary gambles and sometimes gets beat due to mental lapses. He’s not a Marcus Smart or Justise Winslow level defensive wizard. But he atones for this with an excellent motor, and often hustles his way back into the play after he is beat.
Okogie offers a rare intersection of switching versatility, disruptive playmaking, and non-stop motor. Most of his mistakes stem from being too aggressive, and could be reduced over time with more experience and better coaching. Okogie has excellent defensive potential, and is firmly in the conversation for best defensive wing prospect in the draft.
Offense
Offensively Okogie is a work in progress, but one area where he shines is shooting. He made 78% of his FT’s (82% as a sophomore) and 38% of his 3’s during his two years at Georgia Tech. This is really good for an 18/19 year old wing who is younger than freshmen Michael Porter Jr. and Mo Bamba.
He has a rudimentary handle and a good first step, but is mostly limited as a creator. He led the Yellow Jackets in usage (27% both years) because the rest of the team is so dreadful they don’t have any better options. Because of his limited handling and subpar body control, he struggles to finish near the rim on these occasions and had just a 43% 2P as a sophomore (45% overall).
He has a long way to go to become more than a guy who can move the ball, make 3’s, score off the ball, and attack closeouts. But at 19, he has enough physical advantages to have some creation upside if he develops better than expected.
3 + D
Josh Okogie is the quintessential 3 + D prospect. His 3 and free throw stroke are decisively good, and he has upside to be a great shooter. His release is slightly slow, but his form is good and his shot tends to fall. The same can be said for his defense. He is not GOATish in either area, but offers a rare intersection of good at both.
His creation upside spices up his prospect value with a nice upside scenario. Even if he seems like a boring non-creator who will likely not peak higher than players such as Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, Wes Matthews, or Danny Green, there is some potential for more. Nobody talked about Donovan Mitchell or Kawhi Leonard’s upside pre-draft, so why will Josh Okogie not surprise like them?
Kawhi Not?
Kawhi’s DX profile notes similar weaknesses to Okogie (non-elite athlete, struggles to finish off the dribble) and the only major difference is that Okogie is 3″ shorter in both height and length. This is a significant disadvantage, but Kawhi minus 3 inches would nevertheless be a great player.
This is not to say Okogie WILL be Kawhi minus 3 inches. He may not be on the same level cerebrally, and likely will not match Kawhi’s NBA defensive and creation value. But based on current information the possibility cannot be ruled out, and he at least has a small chance of becoming mini-Kawhi. The same cannot be said for Mikal Bridges, as his creation limits are far more significant given his meager 15% usg at ages 19/20.
Bottom Line
Mikal Bridges is considered to be the premier 3 +D prospect in the class. But Bridges is a bit more than two years older, not clearly better in either category, and does not have the same sneaky star potential as Okogie. Further, Bridges’ low freshman + sophomore usage may indicate subtle flaws that give him a lower floor than Okogie.
There are reasons to like Bridges, as he is hyperefficient in his low usage role and Villanova has been the #1 or #2 kenpom team in all three of his seasons there. He knows how to win, has solid role player potential, and is a fine choice in the 15-25 range.
But in terms of NBA upside, Okogie shines as the superior talent. He is the best 3 + D wing prospect in the draft, and is worth a lottery selection. I expect Okogie to rise up draft boards as he outshines higher rated prospects such as Tyus Battle, Khyri Thomas, and Aaron Holiday throughout the draft process.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22443552/usa_today_15727952.jpg)
Dean On Draft 