2026 NBA Draft Big Board Writeup

Hello! If you’re reading this, I am already grateful for you… you’ve taken the time to click into the writeup portion of the board instead of simply rageposting hatemail in the comments; you are taking beyond a cursory glance at the board. I appreciate it! I’ve been - to varying degrees - relatively active on draft twitter for the past five or so cycles. While not all the boards have been “good” and some placements have been outright awful, I feel as though I’ve made progress as an evaluator over recent years, and more importantly, shown a consistency in valuing (or devaluing) certain traits and archetypes while also not being afraid to steer away from consensus.

If you’re newer here, I hope that you’re able to see a clear methodology as to how I am putting these boards together, and that this type of thematic is present in all of my boards (which are always present somewhere on my Twitter publicly). I feel as though it has been evident which characteristics I weigh strongly in my evaluation process - which is a combination of traditional “eye-test” (sorry if that term is too simplistic, but I definitively feel that watching the games is important) and through some level of simple-to-advanced statistical analyses and querying (I’m not necessarily “Sheets FC” but I feel that not using the tools and data available to us as evaluators is extremely dumb).

In short, I tend to love players who demonstrate the ability to, or have shown the ability to grow into: high scoring efficiency in different areas of the floor, versatility in role (especially defensively), create extra possessions for their teams, do not turn the ball over, make sound decisions, display an ability to scale up and down, athleticism relative to size and position, the ability to be neutral to positive impact on both ends of the floor - ultimately, I am looking the ability to play meaningful minutes in playoff basketball games. I know this sounds a bit simplistic, but far too often evaluators seem to get enamored with the “high-end” outcome for a player; upside swings are worth it if the projection into that role doesn’t require some type of outlier development, but players typically have to show some signs of being a star before they become a star.

There are a handful of All-NBA type talents in a class, and most of these are identified early in the process. While it’s imperative to not miss on these guys and extremely impressive to identify stars outside of the consensus top players in a class, the most value in drafting is in producing a schema that allows for you to make quality selections regardless of draft slot to acquire “winning” type players, ie: “winning on the margins.” The teams that are seemingly always nabbing quality rotation level players outside of the top 10, hitting on their 2nd rounders, getting guys who will matter to their team development as opposed to burning picks star hunting (think the Grizzlies before it imploded, the Thunder now, vs the Nets of late) are setting themselves up for success. Star hunting is done mostly via luck and draft spot - there is tons of data to support this. Creating a process that allows you to consistently hit as an evaluator is most important, in my eyes.

With that said, getting the order at the top of the draft with those “lucky” spots is the difference between toiling in mediocrity and changing the arc of your franchise. While I admittedly have not been completely on the money in the top two tiers as an evaluator of late, (Paolo over Chet, Ron Holland #1, Whitmore #4, Dilly #3, Edey just way out of the reasonable area, amongst others - at least I hit on the Thompson twins otherwise I’d be beyond cooked in tiers 1&2) I think I’ve learned from some of my errors. I’ve also successfully faded a number of consensus top prospects who are appearing to flame out - Zacc in the 40s, Brandon Miller 13, GG Jackson in the 50s, Cody Williams 18, Salaun 27, Dieng 25, amongst others). I’ve taken pride in hitting in some of the rankings I’ve had for “margin winners” - Will Richard and Sion James this past year in the low 20s, Baylor Scheierman and TSJ in the mid-late teens, Jaylen Wells and Tyler Burton in the low 30s, Cam Spencer and Ajay ranked, BPodz 12, amongst others. I’m proud of the work I did last year thus far, and think that my ability as an evaluator has improved and hopefully that will become evident as the years go on.

This class has some of those aforementioned “franchise changers” at the top, and a plethora of others who are decent “star bets” - I’m going to try to not ignore players who have low floors as I have in the past, while upholding my paradigm of tending to shoot for players that I think are NBA contributors at the 50%tile type outcome. Outside of the top 4 in this class, it’s a difficult balancing act; we have some injury riddled or flawed upside swings and some older yet impactful seniors. I’m trying to project the likelihood of hitting the top outcome, while still giving value to the median outcome. I may miss on some of the flawed (defensively inept but offensive firepower, athletically inept but basketball savanty types) in this class, but that’s the kind of player I tend to avoid to begin with. Without further ado, I’ll get into the board briefly with emphasis on important and controversial placements.

· Boozer is #1 in a tier of his own because he is the most productive college freshman ever and arguably the best college player ever at a young age with a perceived athletic limitation (one that was less present with less weight on in AAU/HS) that is creating a false ceiling. His processing, motor, touch, and versatility are more than enough to compensate for his lack of vertical pop, plus his strength and feel allow for him to be in the right spots and to get to the right spots on both ends of the floor.

· DP is #2 because he’s the best shooting prospect I’ve seen as an evaluator. Injuries seemed like a legitimate issue, and his situation at Kansas wasn’t ideal. I’m willing to overlook parts of his sample, and though I’m not super hopeful about his playmaking in general, he could turn out to be a 3-level offensive engine if the athleticism and burst that we saw comes back and the hamstring ailment is behind us. Plus he stocks like a beast on defense. Two-way superstar potential.

· I like Wilson a lot - but going to gloss over and hit on Dybantsa #4 in the interest of time. AJ’s burst and rim finishing are second to none. He is maybe the most impressive downhill scorer I’ve ever evaluated. His defensive projection is bad - I am not sure how anyone is projecting him to be a positive NBA defender when he hasn’t been one at any level of his career. His shot diet is pretty bad. He doesn’t really like to take threes. His passing vision leaves a lot to be desired. I still think he’s a future all-star, he’s in the same tier as the other two, I’m just not so convinced that he’s a sure-fire bet to be a winning type NBA player vs. a PRA regular season beast.

· Yaxel is the best of the rest. Quite simply, every NBA team would be better with him as a starter in their lineup. He has improved in every aspect of his game each year - he has had an unprecedented run from barely playing in HS, moving to JUCO, becoming a tertiary piece at UAB, becoming the guy there, to becoming the guy for a national championship winning team. He’s scaled up, scaled down, shot the ball, shown playmaking, shown defensive anchor potential, and his measurements came in quite well. I’m not betting against his insane development continuing, and even if it slows, he’s already really fucking good.

· Mikel is PG1. His 3pt shooting ability plus his ability to hunt and create these opportunities himself are amazing. He is the best point guard athlete in the class - best anthros, most dunks, just looks the burstiest. His combination of ability to generate his own shot at the 3pt line and at the rim (even though on meh efficiency) is potentially franchise changer level. He is passable on defense given his propensity for turnover forcing and he should be able to put some more weight on the frame. I think we were seeing him at less than 100% this season. He is the best star bet outside of the top group in the class.

· Mara - he’s just so big and skilled. Not fading 7’2 guys with his skillset anymore. Sorry Edey.

· Swain - if his anthros (obviously matters and they won’t improve) and RSCI (doesn’t matter and is keeping him lowkey) were better, he’s a consensus top 10 guy. He’s the best self-creator in the draft outside of Dybantsa and maybe Philon. His jump shot looks weird, but it has improved year over year and his free throw %s are solid. Good defensively and while the size was disappointing, it’s definitely not prohibitive. Secondary initiator potential and positive impact player on both ends.

· Stirtz - he was asked to do absolutely everything for his team. I think with a reasonable role and scaled down usage his efficiency will get even better. Has won and been the engine for his team at every level. Sneaky a solid athlete. Sees the game so well, efficiency and turnovers for usage rates are quite good. Slide him in and ask him to be part of an offense instead of the whole offense. Flourish.

· Burries and Graves - I don’t see the high-level outcomes that some do for them, but they are both extremely solid players who play unselfishly and efficiently. Sort of meh anthros and athleticism, but positive impact and relative youth (know both are old for class but neither has been given the opportunity to run their own show, but crushed it in the roles asked of them). False ceiling potential and high floors.

· Philon and Okorie over Flemings, Wagler, and Acuff - both Philon and Okorie have the requisite size and self-creation to be combo guard engine types in the NBA. Philon is a bit better at getting to his own spot, Okorie’s shot diet is a bit more desirable, but both are big enough, quick enough, and skilled enough to pass on defense and to score the ball on offense without turning it over. Flemings I have concerns on extending his range and on Houston BPM type stacking. Was he really that impactful or was he just the only ball handler for a talented squad that could only generate looks with him on the floor? His offensive game is too mid-range reliant. His anthros were a killer for his hopes of being the best-in-league type defender we were hoping for. He said it himself, maybe he’s Cason Wallace. That’s a really solid player. Just not really at the market level. I see a support player who helps impact winning but doesn’t drive winning himself. Acuff (defensively) and Wagler (athletically) I fear have fatal type flaws. Acuff’s measurements were solid, but why was he still the worst defender in college basketball? How do we project that to improve? Is his 3pt sample and ft sample more akin to his HS/AAU numbers or did he take a drastic shooting ability leap? Will he be able to get to his spots as easily against stronger defenders? Offensively he is pretty polished, but I have doubts on the shooting being real and think he could get run off the floor defensively. Wagler I think has worst in the league level athleticism. I am not sure that his downhill offensive game will work against NBA players. Who can he guard? His shooting and processing are very good. I could end up looking dumb on both of these guys, but they require leaps on defense and athleticism that I don’t feel comfortable projecting.

· Brazile and Carr - two older prospects that I really like. Brazile has quickness/tweener type questions, but his anthros were generally very good plus he is still not too far removed from a serious injury. He compares favorably to Thomas Haugh in basically every way. Carr’s diet was very assisted, plus his weight is a serious concern, but his 2pt efficiency, range, and defensive activity are too good to ignore. He could be a Champagnie type. I think both of these guys are starting level NBA players.

Other notes:

· I am not that high on the guard class. Gillespie is the best bet outside of the consensus t20 types. He could be the next small, old guard who grows to have positive impact in the NBA

· Tweener bigs are quite strong in this class. The aforementioned Brazile, plus Morez, Zuby, JQ (injuries man, he’d be much higher if I were clear on his health/status), and other even true bigs like Hannes (nice measurements but worried about his mold generally), Veesaar, Rueben Chinyelu, Tarris Reed, and Onyenso could play NBA minutes.

· I don’t really love Peat, Ament, or Lopez. Youth is good and size is good, but if that’s your primary (only) sell as a prospect, I don’t think that’s a great recipe for becoming an impactful player. Cenac falls here as well to a lesser degree.

· Generally, this class lost a ton of depth with the volume of quality returners given NIL changes in college. It was pretty clear this was going to happen, as it just makes sense for most guys to take the payday and try to improve their stock (ie: Yax, Philon). These classes are just generally going to keep getting older; the advantage of being an early declaration only really holds up to age 19 anyways - players who are older are smart to use their eligibility, make a ton of money, and come out when their stock is best and the timing is right. With that said, I still think this is a good overall class, just not to the historic level that it was sold as, especially outside of the top four. Inside the top four, I wouldn’t be surprised to see any of them ultimately pan out to be the best player in the class, but I’d be more surprised if one of them was a true bust (this is likely historically based on the data, but I really like them all as prospects).

If you’ve made it to here, thanks so much for reading and supporting. Comments and DMs are always open, and I’m happy to answer any questions you might have. Here’s to the end of an extremely fun cycle!

There is massive value in identifying these types of prospects, which is what led me to rank guys like Will Richard and Sion James in the low 20’s on my 2025 Big Board. Per Mike Gribanov and Bennett Herbert, I was the highest on all of DT on Richard and close to the highest on James - while neither player has star upside, which caused most to overlook them in their rankings, both are already capable of contributing to winning basketball and trusted with playing in crunch time rotations on occasion.

There are a few players who I see in a similar mold in this draft cycle - auto-eligible, likely to go in the late 2nd or undrafted (at least at this point, I believe) but could turn out to become effective NBA role players. I believe that Jaron Pierre, Corey Stephenson, Elias Ralph, David Green, and Nate Kingz are all worthy of consideration for a roster spot, despite being absent from virtually every consensus top-80 list I’ve seen thus far. While I am admittedly less confident in/excited about this crop than I was in comparison to Richard and James, I wouldn’t be surprised to see one or a few of these guys as bench contributors in the league. Also quick shout out to Pryce Sandfort, Eain Elmer, and Jordan Burks (would have them on here but think they will all return), and Tyler Nickel (already covered him in a previous piece and on a pod with FinnDraft).

Jaron Pierre – SMU: 6’6 210, 7/12/2002

Jaron Pierre is a wing who arrived at SMU this year after playing at three other programs in four previous collegiate seasons. Pierre has been a relatively high-usage play finisher, but has also been trusted running the offense in the event that one of Boopie Miller or BJ Edwards is out of the game. Last season at Jacksonville State, Pierre was utilized as a primary more often and posted a positive A/TO with a nice assist rate; his experience handling the ball could give us confidence in him as a connector/decision maker at the NBA level. Pierre is a dynamic leaper and has produced a number of highlight-reel dunks this season. With 47 career dunks, you’d hope for better rim finishing percentages (52.4% last year on a more unassisted diet, 62.8% this season) especially in a system at SMU with good shooters that allows for solid spacing and easier slashing lanes. However, his large and decently efficient sample of non-rim 2’s somewhat mitigates touch concerns. Pierre didn’t exactly shoot the cover off of the ball either earlier in his career, which could cause fears that this season’s 3pt sample is somewhat fluky, but as a career 78% ft shooter and with a tougher current diet than he’ll likely be using in the NBA (39.6% assisted 3pt in 2025, 73.5% in 2026), he is likely to be a solid to good standstill shooter with some hopes you can run him off screens as a movement shooter and also create his own looks on occasion. Furthermore, his athleticism pops off the screen and he is willing to compete as an on-ball defender despite relatively middling stock production. With a 30.6% usage last season and 23.4% this season, it’s possible that most of his effort is expended on the offensive end and he could be a more active defender in a lesser role at the next level. Overall, Pierre has featured in a number of roles over the course of his college career and shown the versatility to be a contributor in each of them; with a more defined role as a true wing at the NBA level, I’d expect his shooting to hold up and his defense to improve while offering a good blend of athleticism, passing connectivity, and effort.

Corey Stephenson – FIU: 6’6 220, 5/5/2004

Corey Stephenson transferred to FIU after playing the previous two seasons at Cal State Bakersfield and his freshman year in Juco. Stephenson actually has a relatively similar profile to Pierre – good dunk output, middling at the rim percentages, high usage, impressive non-rim 2’s on an unassisted diet, and quality 3pt percentages. Stevenson’s raw production is impressive (roughly 18/6/2 with 2 stocks per game), albeit on a 16-14 team in CUSA. An interesting tidbit on Stephenson is that as a freshman at Northeast Mississippi CC, he led the team in scoring, rebounding, and blocks (17/6/1 per game). Additionally, Stevenson led CSU-B in rebounding in 2025, and while his numbers have dipped a bit this season, I’d still consider him an active rebounder. With a 4.0% stock rate, Stevenson offers a quality all-around game that you’d want from a bench wing. Stevenson is definitively the best player on a pretty mediocre mid-major – he has the highest usage on the team and is the best 3pt shooter by percentage on the roster despite having the most attempts. If asked to play in more of a support role in a better environment, I’m sure his efficiency metrics – while already generally good – could be even better. It’ll be interesting to see if he gets an invite to the PIT; this could be a good chance for him to showcase himself in a scaled down role more similar to one he’d project to play in the NBA. In summary, 6’6” 40% high volume 3pt shooters who rebound and compete on defense do not grow on trees; while Stevenson doesn’t quite have the blk% of other mid-low major superstars who ended up NBA wings (Daeqwon Plowden and Daquan Jefferies), he profiles favorably to them as a shooter and scorer. Stevenson’s profile is a bit reminiscent of Ben Sheppard’s, and I think he actually might have a bit more athleticism.

Elias Ralph – Pacific: 6’7 212, 10/23/2003

Elias Ralph is a big wing who arrived at Pacific in 2025 from Victoria University in Canada. Ralph started playing basketball as an eighth grader when he was 5’9”, making the switch over from ice hockey. Ralph isn’t exactly a bursty athlete like the first two players I covered, but he has an interesting blend of body control, pace, and craftiness and has had success as more of a mid-post operator for Pacific. Ralph has a fun package of counters and a strong ability to get to his own spot in the mid-range. Despite not being a twitchy mover, Ralph still has 44 dunks in two D1 seasons. While his 3pt shooting was straight bad in 2025, the improvement to this season seems to be real given his impressive non-rim 2’s profile and free throw percentage. Additionally, Ralph was a 38% career 3pt shooter in his three seasons at Victoria, shooting 40.5% on 148 attempts in 2023-2024. Furthermore, Ralph is visibly long and has a good frame – I know that this is a pretty deep cut and that he might not get a chance at all, but if given the chance to add weight and get more experience playing basketball at a high level, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him pop up on radars in the coming years. Ralph is most definitely a bit of a projection at this point, but his general activity is already pretty solid (5.0 stk% this season and even better in 2025, quality rebounding metrics in 2025), and he has only been at this level of competition for two years. Dave Smart, Head Coach at Pacific is quoted as saying “I recruited him to come in and be our eighth man… he was our best player…” It’s not out of the realm of possibility that Ralph can continue to surprise people if he is afforded the opportunity.

David Green – Tulsa: 6’7 225, 3/27/2002

David Green is a 6^th year senior big wing playing in his first campaign at Tulsa – he has been a major contributor to the program’s best season in a decade, if not more (Bill Self’s Elite Eight team in 2000 would like a word if I were to go further than that). Green also isn’t a bursty athlete, but he is pretty massive/bulky (solid rebounding numbers over his career, it isn’t just for vanity) and is comfortable guarding on the post and on the perimeter defensively (loosely using guarding, has been mostly a zero to negative DPBM player throughout his career, though the stock production the past two seasons has been solid). Green has a smooth handle, low turnover percentages relative to usage over his career, and is able to generate his own looks at the rim and in the mid-range. Green is a bit of a perplexing shooting prospect – the free throw vs three point percentages on relatively large samples over his career don’t really add up; however with four seasons of 40%+ 3pt shooting, it would be hard to doubt his ability to make shots from range. Furthermore, like all of the prospects I’ve highlighted, Green has a solid non-rim 2’s profile while also producing the best at-rim percentages of his career in 2026. With his age and physical maturity, seeing the uptick in his finishing ability is encouraging – I’m frankly more surprised by his previous samples than with his 65% on 60%+ unassisted that he’s put up this season given his strength, build, handle, and ability to fishing with both hands around the basket (he’s a lefty but has produced a number of highlight-level finishes with his right). Green compares very favorably to Myron Gardner, another smaller-school, jacked physique wing who just signed a guaranteed deal with the Miami Heat. I’d expect to see Green at Portsmouth given the team success and his production, where he’ll have a good opportunity to earn an E-10 or a two-way.

Nate Kingz – Syracuse: 6’5 190, 11/14/2002

Nate Kingz is a guard/wing who is wrapping up his first season at Syracuse after spending a season at Oregon State and two more at the NAIA/JUCO level. Kingz has mostly spend time as more of a combo guard, but has the size and length to guard up and play more of a wing role in the NBA. While the free throw percentage is a bit odd this year given his general prowess as a shooter, he also turned in a career 85% clip from the line in JUCO. Kingz has basically only tried to score at the rim or from the three point line this season, but shot 54% on non-rim 2’s on more attempts during his only year in Corvallis using a plethora of stepbacks and hesis. To be frank, I was more impressed with his tape and sample at OSU, but the Syracuse context is pretty unfortunate (trying to feature Donnie Freeman, JJ Starling doing his thing, 6 other players in the rotation have higher usage, etc…). Kingz had far more on-ball reps at Oregon State and in Juco, and he rarely turns the ball over. He is a quick decision maker with the basketball and confident shooting it from extremely deep. Despite the lack of spacing and horrid three point shooting at Syracuse, he shot 72% at the rim with just 23.7% assisted this season. The shooting sample from Oregon State was simply nuclear, and he also shot 38% from three with a high frequency in Juco. With long arms, good burst, and the willingness to guard the opposing team’s primary handler, Kingz has potential to add value on both ends of the floor. I could Kingz providing competitiveness, shooting, and energy off the bench in a low-usage offensive role and with defensive versatility.

Will Richard (21^st on my board, outside of consensus top 60)

Will Richard played a major role in getting the Gators to the promised land this past season – he was arguably their best wing shooter and defender. Richard (unofficial 6’10.5” wingspan) is able to guard bigger players with his long arms and stout frame and hit big shot after big shot as Florida ripped off twelve straight wins to cap their dream season. Richard has a very high quality at-rim profile as well, with 23 dunks and 74% on 127 attempts this season. With an effortless and quick release, I think that his career numbers (35.4% from 3, 83% free throw) even understate his shooting prowess… as you can see his shooting profile from his sophomore season at Florida in the above Bart table, Richard is capable of better numbers on solid volume already. His stock generation is solid (was even more impressive in his freshman season at a lower comp level at Belmont), and he absolutely competes on the defensive end. I quite frankly have no idea what the thesis against him as a later selection is, and the lack of hype around him as a prospect is perplexing. Richard is my top bet to make teams regret passing on him in this cycle.

Sion James, (23^rd, 45^th consensus)

Sion James flourished in his lone season for Duke, as he quickly supplanted Caleb Foster in the starting lineup during the non-conference season. Efficient from all areas of the floor, James shot his best percentage from deep in his transfer season but also put together a quality shooting profile on higher volume during his last year at Tulane. James is built like a tank (6’4.5” barefoot, 218lbs) and spent time running point guard in his time in the American – he is a trustworthy decision maker and capable of guarding just about any position on the floor in short spurts. While he turned the ball over a bit more this season than you’d like to see in 2025, his career TO% and A/TO are encouraging given he played an even more “on-ball” role at Tulane. With a 91.83 bSPARQ (86^th percentile for an NBA wing), James is a great bet to be a quality connector, a strong defensive piece, and add enough standstill shooting off the bench for a playoff team. While he doesn’t boast quite as impressive of a stock profile, I can see shades of Lu Dort (with slightly minus athleticism and ++ shooting) in Sion.

Amari Williams (24^th, 56^th consensus)

Amari Williams played his final collegiate season at Kentucky after transferring up from Drexel. His playmaking and quality decision making at the five make him an intriguing backup big-man prospect. He was the defensive player of the year in the CAA during his time at Drexel, posting gaudy block numbers and anchoring a successful team defense. While his official measurements have not been listed (at least that I have seen/can find) it is evident that he has an extremely long wingspan (rumored 7’5”) at just under a true seven feet tall. Williams is a genuine advantage creator with his passing and is comfortable making more advanced reads in the high post and being a DHO hub. Williams is a pretty good mover for a guy of his size, and while you wouldn’t want him switching out onto perimeter players too regularly, he is capable of doing so without being a complete liability. He tends to gamble on the perimeter in these situations, leading to a nice steal %, but also exposing the rest of the defense to becoming misshapen. If he can focus on containment and shuffling instead, I think it’s possible for him to function outside of drop-only defensive schemes. Williams is a very strong bet to become a usable bench big.

Eric Dixon (27^th, 49^th consensus)

Eric Dixon has worn a number of hats over the five years of his Villanova career – initially a post-oriented big man who carried a lighter offensive load, Dixon transformed into a deadly perimeter shooter and the true focal point of his team’s offense. While the general team success waned following Jay Wright’s departure, Dixon matured into one of the leading scorers in all of college basketball, putting together a highlight tape of impressive and one finishes and drilling a difficult diet of 3pt field goals. If you look back on Dixon’s profile, you can see that he had much better rebounding numbers and block percentages before he was asked to carry the offense – this limits my concerns regarding these are weak points in his profile, as he will scale into a role more suitable for him at the next level. I heard that Dixon was one of the only players who showed up to the 2024 PIT with a professional resume on card stock paper... he is a smart young man and a player who was asked to do things that don’t match his strengths for the betterment of the team. Dixon should be able to play minutes as a small ball 5 and spread the floor in the two-big types of lineups that are becoming more popular today in the NBA.

Micah Peavy (34^th, outside of consensus top 60)

Micah Peavy spent his final collegiate season at Georgetown after spending his previous four years between two Big 12 programs. I am breaking my precedent ignoring players below 3.0 BPM in the year prior to their draft declaration, because so much about Peavy’s profile changed in his last year. Peavy genuinely went nuclear from 3pt land at Georgetown, shooting 40% on 130 attempts after a pretty horrific profile in his earlier samples. However, he clearly has done a lot of work to revamp his shot generally from a more shotput/herky-jerky motion into a concise, higher release that was even allowed him some self-created looks (>30% unassisted 30pt, >75% unassisted non-rim 2’s) that we wouldn’t have though possible during his time at TCU and TTU. Additionally, his stock generation over his five seasons (+4.0 STK% in all but one collegiate season, as high as 6.4 STK% in 2023) shows the type of defensive activity that you want in wing defender. Peavy has solid size and athleticism (6’6.25” barefoot, 212lbs, 65%tile bSPARQ, 98 career dunks) – if the shooting uptick is real, hes a plug and play 3&D bet off the bench for NBA teams in need of this archetype (basically all of them).

Jonathan Pierre (37^th, outside of consensus top 60)

Now I’m really ignoring my own rules – it would be an outlier outcome for Jonathan Pierre to become a successful NBA player, but I’m willing to take a flier on a guy who has defied the odds already to this point in his career. As a young senior – just turned 22 on April 20^th – who only played one real season of NCAA D1 basketball (barely got minutes for Penny at Memphis), Pierre still has plenty of room to run in his development curve. During his high school years in South Florida, Pierre mostly played in a combo-guard role prior to his growth spurt – this is evident in his ball handling skills and ability to create off the dribble at his size. He was an unheralded recruit and chose to play for a local program at a lower level who ended up growing more than half a foot between his high school graduation and becoming a D2 national champion and Player of the Year at Nova Southeastern (14ppg on 50/40/80 splits). The track record for players with below a 3.0 BPM becoming successful NBA players is sparse at best; however, I’d want to take a chance and see what I could develop – players with his size, shooting (37% on > 12 3pt/100) , and ball skills are hard to find.

Chris Youngblood (41^st, outside of consensus top 60)

I was hoping that we’d get to see a bit more of Chris Youngblood this year, but injuries and a crowded backcourt at Alabama somewhat limited the sample we were able to take from him. With that said, Youngblood is a strong candidate for best shooter in the draft, in a class starved for outside shooting this could take him a long way. Youngblood has a great volume and touch profile (11.2 3p/100, 258 made threes on 40.2% in his last four years, 48.1% on non-rim 2’s his lone year at USF) and doesn’t turn the ball over much (13.1% TO over his career). Furthermore, his stock output from his pre-Alabama sample is quite good; while you can attribute some of the drop-off to the competition level rise, I still think we were seeing a player gutting it out at less than 100% health for most of this season. I’d project Youngblood to be athletic enough to not get played off the floor on defense while also having the bulky/burly body type to handle NBA physicality. His sample at USF also shows a guy capable of scoring off the dribble, drawing fouls, and generating offense himself. If you’re looking for a guy to come in and shoot the ball, look no further than Youngblood

Curtis Jones (53^rd, outside of consensus top 60)

Curtis Jones was a staple on two extremely successful ISU teams after transferring up mid-career from Buffalo. Jones is a pretty nuclear shooter in his own right, but also has a high-level self-creation profile (37.4% on 235 attempts, 13.1 3pt/100, ~45% on non rim 2’s with just 15.4% assisted). Jones is slithery and smart in the lane, and able to use a variety of non-traditional finishes to create inside the arc while also remaining a threat to shoot it from deep at any time. With a 6’8” wingspan, Jones could have the ability to guard a variety of NBA players, and his defensive playmaking (2.5% STL) is quite good for a player of his ability on the other side of the ball. Jones was tasked with a heavy offensive load – especially when Keshon Gilbert was out of the lineup – and still posted a solid ~1.65:1 A/TO and ~10% TO rate. The leap in his usage from year one to year to at ISU (19.7% to 25.4%) while also increasing his efficiency (52.1% to 56.9%) is notable. In a more scaled down role, I would think that his already solid efficiency numbers could take another leap, and his quality decision making will keep offenses moving on schedule, while adding a highly adept and nuanced play finishing flair.

I know that I said at the end of my last article that I’d get into discussing potential reasons/examples that statistical metrics are biased towards certain archetypes… recall:

STATISTICAL INDICATORS TEND TO FAVOR/BIAS THESE TYPES OF PLAYERS

1) Okay players on good teams

2) Productive big men

3) Players who are efficient on low volume

I still plan on getting to this but would like to put a pin in this discussion as I’ve started to see some “Way Too Early” lists and “Top Returners” articles over the past few days. After seeing this, I’d like to have a larger discussion and provide a light (perhaps obvious) framework for identifying potential prospects for upcoming drafts, prior to the start of the next college basketball season.

Drafts are comprised of players of a three different categories:

· One-and-done’s

· Returners

· International/Non-NCAA players

With the paradigm shift in the NCAA landscape due to NIL, we have seen players decide to return to college who may not have in the past and seen an influx of overseas talent deciding to play US College hoops. I believe that this will likely lead to a slight shift in the composition of drafts; however, for the time being, I will still use data from the last five to ten seasons to help develop this framework. Additionally, the number of international/overseas prospects without a standardized/talent adjusted sample will likely decrease, which could make prospect evaluation a bit easier. Let me help you narrow down the pool of potential players for the 2026 NBA draft, and hopefully this framework can continue to be used in future years.

YOU’RE PROBABLY OKAY IGNORING PROSPECTS OUTSIDE OF THE RSCI TOP 40

Over the past ten draft cycles, there have only been thirteen US-based one-and-done’s who have been ranked outside of the top 40 RSCI:

1. Marquese Chriss (Washington, 2016 – RSCI 52, 8^th pick)

2. Justin Jackson (Maryland, 2017 – RSCI 67, 43^rd pick)

3. Jaxson Hayes (Texas, 2019 – RSCI 65, 8^th pick)

4. Moses Moody (Arkansas, 2021 – RSCI 45, 14^th pick)

5. Jeremy Sochan (Baylor, 2022 – RSCI unranked, 9^th pick)

6. Blake Wesley (Notre Dame, 2023 – RSCI 94, 25^th pick)

7. Josh Minott (Memphis, 2022, RSCI 44, 45^th pick)

8. Taylor Hendricks (UCF, 2023 – RSCI 46, 9^th pick)

9. Noah Clowney (Alabama, 2023 – RSCI 71, 21^st pick)

10. Carlton Carrington (Pittsburgh, 2024 – RSCI unranked, 14^th pick)

11. Kyshawn George (Miami, 2024 – RSCI unranked, 24^th pick)

12. Johnny Furphy (Kansas, 2024 – RSCI unranked, 35^th pick)

13. Cam Christie (Minnesota, 2024, RSCI 69, 46^th pick)

There were 139 one-and-done’s over the time that encompasses the sample and just 13 examples of players who were ranked outside of the RSCI top 40 who were drafted immediately following their freshman season (~9.35%). I think that part of this is that RSCI plays a role in developing draft models for teams and is a consideration in prospect evaluation. There are three players in this coming draft class who somewhat fit these criteria – Thomas Sorber, Jeremiah Fears, and Will Riley; however, Sorber was RSCI 40 (technically inside the criteria) and Fears and Riley reclassified into an older age bucket and were well within the RSCI top 40 in their initial class. Furthermore, while there has been an increase in the amount of one-and-done’s outside of the top 40 RSCI in recent years, I feel as though most of these players will end up returning due to NIL – players like George, Furphy, and Christie probably would’ve gone back to improve draft stock and make better money. When evaluating the 2025 high school class for potential prospects in the 2026 NBA draft, and incoming freshmen in as one-and-done’s in general, you’re probably safe to narrow your scope to the top 40 players in the class.

YOU CAN LIKELY IGNORE PLAYERS WHO ARE RETURNING WITH A BPM OF 3.0 OR LOWER

Of the 133 returners who were drafted who had BPM statistics available for the last season in which they returned to college basketball who were drafted in the last five cycles, 29 players had a “returning season BPM” of lower than 3.00 (~21.8%). If you lower that threshold to 2.5bpm, there are only 20 players (~15.04%). While there are a few notable success stories – Jalen Williams, Trey Murphy, Brandin Podziemski, Tari Eason, Immanuel Quickley, Toumani Camara – the rest of the players aren’t very good. I have the data readily available if anyone is interested.

This isn’t a hard and fast rule, but it probably makes sense to initially not spend much time on players who played last year and weren’t good in their game action. Furthermore, only 14 of these 29 players were first round picks, and many of them have not returned positive value to this point in their careers – Jordan Hawkins, Tre Mann, Kobe Bufkin, Wendell Moore, Kira Lewis, and Dalen Terry to name a few. Additionally, only 12 of the 29 players had a draft year of Junior or Senior, and only four of these 12 were first round picks. This leads us to the pretty obvious conclusion that if you’ve played two college seasons and haven’t been good, you’re probably not an NBA guy.

In terms of time allocation, you’d probably be better off focusing on players who have already demonstrated that they can be positive impact players instead of trying to uncover diamonds in the rough/outliers. The opportunity to evaluate these types of guys presents itself typically after the non-conference season – all of the notable success stories drastically improved their profiles by that point of their draft year, and many of them were flourishing in new situations and roles.

While this might not seem super helpful at face value – “Duh, Sam, why would we ever look at a player with a below 3.0 BPM?” – there are thousands of returning college basketball players and only 164 who had a BPM above 3.0 who played at a high major last year. That’s a much narrower prospect pool. This also would help to remove some returners that I’ve seen on lists so far: Jaland Lowe, Joson Sanon, Oziyah Sellers, Rob Wright, Elijah Fisher, Keyshawn Hall, Blake Harper, Jahlil Bethea, Jerry Deng, Zoom Diallo, Jeremiah Wilkinson, Malik Mack, Treysen Eaglestaff, and Elliot Cadeau to name a few.

WHO DOES THIS LEAVE AS UNDERDISCUSSED RETURNERS FOR NEXT CYCLE?

While a number of high-profile players opted to return to college, as previously discussed, I’d like to take a bit of time to highlight a few prospects who I believe have interesting profiles that are being overlooked.

· Jacob Cofie (6’10” F/C, USC, Sophomore)

Jacob Cofie spent last year at UVA, in a muddling offensive scheme and with the overhang of an interim coach weighing on the program. This year, he is heading to USC to play for Eric Musselman, where I believe he will have a better opportunity to demonstrate his athleticism, length, and high skill level. As you can see above, Cofie’s stock production is very good – he is an active defender and capable secondary rim protector. Additionally, I believe his shooting projection is decent in spite of his putrid 3pt% this past season – decent long 2% (on less than half assisted) and solid free throw percentage. Furthermore, he posted a slightly positive A/TO, and isn’t a black hole when he receives the ball. Watching him, his athleticism is evident – he's an effortless mover, powerful leaper, and has a great frame to put on additional muscle. Although he was a significant dropper in higher-competition games this past season, I remain excited to see his development away from Virginia.

· Eric Dailey Jr. (6’8” big wing, UCLA, Junior)

I would’ve had Eric Dailey ranked in my top 60 if he entered the 2025 NBA draft. Instead of testing the waters, he is returning to UCLA, where he spent last year watching Tyler Bilodeau take contested 18 foot turnarounds after transferring in from Oklahoma State. Though Dailey cooled off a bit towards the end of the season, his profile and size is intriguing. Listed at 230lbs, Dailey is able to get to the rim and finish at a high level, and also posted solid efficiency from the midrange (46.1% on only 46.8% assisted) and 3pt range (~38% on almost 3 attempts per game). Additionally, he is able to use his size and ostensibly long arms to switch onto bigger offensive players, while also being able to stay in front of most college ball handlers. I’d like to see an improved BLK% (and increased USG, but I’m not placing any faith in Mick Cronin), but firmly believe that Dailey should be on radars entering next season.

· Miles Rubin (6’10” Center, Loyola-Chicago, Junior)

Miles Rubin is basically a human pogo stick. With 109 dunks over the past 2 seasons, and his insane block rates, Rubin is an interesting rim runner type bet for the 2026 draft. Rubin is a bit slender at the moment, but looks as if he has the frame to add more weight so he can compete with bigger bodies in the paint. Rubin didn’t take much of a leap from his first year at Loyola to his second – his strengths and weaknesses largely remained the same. With an August 2004 birth date, Rubin is likely done growing, but probably is starting to hit the age where it becomes easier to gain muscle. I’ll be curious about his measurements, as his arms look extremely long to compliment his bounciness, but his height and weight remain general question marks. His touch around the rim and in the mid-range isn’t even bad – taking out dunks, he still shot 66.7% at the rim. His free throw issues are a bit perplexing, as he has a ridiculously high arc on his shot. Maybe an offseason of tinkering can help him improve in that regard.

· James Scott (6’11” Center, Louisville, Junior)

Another ridiculously athletic center, James Scott stumbled into a larger than anticipated role in his first season at Louisville following an early season-ending injury for KaSean Pryor (still a prospect, I still believe!!). Scott anchored an extremely successful defense for Chris Mack (21^st in adjusted defensive efficiency) while functioning as the only meaningful true big. Quite frankly, I am surprised that his BLK% is so low – 4.1% isn’t bad generally, but it is compared to his prior sample at Charleston and given his athleticism (79 dunks) and plus length. Scott had a 1.4:1 A/TO, phenomenal rebound rates on both ends, and requires basically no special attention/manufactured touches offensively – if you want a guy who is just going to battle hard and do his job as a backup big, he’s a great candidate. It was reported that Scott was the fourth youngest player in college basketball during his freshman year at Charleston, so he has plenty of time to continue to develop.

· Christian Anderson (6’2” CG, Texas Tech, Sophomore)

Christian Anderson spent portions of this past season as an true point guard for Texas Tech, but also functioned in more of a off-ball role when their team was fully healthy. He played point guard at a very high level for Oak Hill Academy, a top prep program, and gained a reputation as one of the best shooters in his class. His size is a major question mark – the margins for guards of his size to succeed are super thin, think of all of the highly productive small guards of the last decade who flamed out. However, his efficiency from all spots on the floor as a shooter gives him a high likelihood of being one of the best guards in college basketball over the coming years. With a > 2:1 A/TO and experience playing both spots in the backcourt, Anderson should continue to improve for a strong returning team. Despite his lack of size (I don’t really think he’s 6’2”), his at-rim production is decent on a relatively unassisted diet. He has shown the ability to hit self-created jump shots off the dribble and did so with relatively low usage. Anderson is a strong candidate to be scaled into a greater offensive role, and I’d expect some gaudy production from him to put him in conversations with players like Tremont Waters, Carsen Edwards, Cassius Winston, Payton Pritchard, etc.

Hi all,

I’ve been a long-time lurker and somewhat shorter-time participant in NBA Draft discourse on twitter… I wanted to take some time and lay out my thoughts and introduce myself a bit more formally to the space, while hopefully also starting some useful discussion around the way that we all tend to evaluate prospects and analyze the game wholistically.

As a quick intro, I’ve been a huge hoops fan since before I can remember; I grew up with Heat season tickets and would memorize the game programs I got in my spare time. I grew up in South Florida, and definitely never had a shot to be a decent level hooper myself, but ended up developing into a solid football player. I committed to Williams College (small D3 liberal arts school in Massachusetts, shouts Duncan Robinson) and majored in Economics there because I thought it would give me the best chance to get a job on Wall Street after I graduated, a childhood dream… this ended up working out, and after I graduated in 2018 I started as a trader at Morgan Stanley in NYC. I’m currently back in Miami, and am a trader/analyst at a hedge fund down here and use pretty rudimentary statistical analysis daily, and think it’s an essential part of any evaluation process in trading/investments and hoops.

I broke my leg before my senior year at Williams, and had a ton of free time laying around; this is when I first discovered Bart Torvik and basketball publications like the Stepien. As I dove deeper, I started to view basketball through a bit more of an analytical lens, and also discovered DraftTwitter. Over the last 7-8 years, I’ve progressively gotten more involved with basketball analysis as my main hobby and time killer, and have started to push to make some more connections in this space online in the last year or so. Despite my job and background/skillset, I wouldn’t say I’m truly SpreadsheetFC at all, and probably use metrics less than I should/less than some of you and the larger DraftTwitter pundits tend to. I will say that I watch a ton of ball and make it a point to see at least 5 or so full games of players I think are prospects as part of my evaluation.

STATISTICAL INDICATORS ARE KEY TO BASKETBALL ANALYSIS, BUT DO NOT COMPLETELY CAPTURE IMPORTANT FACTORS

1) Team Context

While statistics do a great job breaking down how effective players are at specific parts of their game, and also are able to identify how successful their team contexts are in these areas, there is no quantifiable way to provide the proper discount or premium necessary to encompass how successful the individual player would be on a different team or in a different situation. To illustrate this, I’ll start with one of my favorite prospects who opted to return to school in this most recent class, Miles Byrd.

Miles Byrd is viewed as a high-quality defensive bet wing who has significant issues scoring at/around the rim due to his slender build and lack of physicality. His stock creation the past two seasons has been phenomenal (9.2% STK in ~75% of team minutes in 2025, 8.9% STK in ~32% of team minutes in 2024). A common retort to the viability of his defensive activity boils back to the positive statistical profile of SDSU’s defense as a whole – 20^th in Adjusted Defensive Efficiency, 59^th in Defensive Turnover Rate, 1^st in Block Percentage in 2025. Additionally, Byrd played most of his minutes with an extremely high quality rim protector – Magoon Gwath is a true 7 footer with a ++ wingspan and a 14.1% Block Rate, which could allow for Byrd to take more risks on the ball and gamble in passing lanes with the comfort that it wouldn’t lead directly to an easy look at the rim if it didn’t work out. Furthermore, SDSU under Brian Dutcher has produced a number of high stock players over his tenure – a few names who were over 4% STK since Dutcher took over: Yanni Wetzell, Matt Mitchell, Nathan Mensah, Aguek Arop, Keshad Johnson, Chad Baker-Mazara, Lamont Butler, Jaedon Ledee, and Micah Parrish. Not exactly a murderer’s row.

The defense that they employ generally leans towards stock creation and turnover forcing to succeed, whereas a number of other teams are more focused on containment, scheme integrity, and forcing difficult shots. For example, Wisconsin finished as the 4^th ranked team in Adjusted Defensive Efficiency, while finishing 112^th in Defensive Turnover Percentage. Not every team is coached the same, which provides different opportunity sets for players on those teams to generate statistics. If Byrd played at Wisconsin, I seriously doubt that he would have the same defensive profile that he did at SDSU. This brings us to a conundrum – is Byrd an elite defensive prospect, or is he merely a good defensive prospect who played in a scheme that allowed for him to generate a gaudy statistical profile? I personally believe that he is the former, but was only able to arrive at that conclusion after watching his games and seeing his activity and instincts in action, but not merely through the lens of his paper profile.

Another example of how stats alone can muddy a player’s projection is when a player is misused or suboptimally deployed by their team in an effort to give the team the best chance to win, rather than for the sake of maximizing that player’s development or making use of their best skills. One good example of this can be seen in a formerly polarizing low-major prospect, turned successful NBA player, Santi Aldama.

Aldama played both of his collegiate years at Loyola Maryland, and carried an immense load for the team despite the presence of eventual national championship point guard and NBA player, Cam Spencer. As you can see on the above profile, Aldama is listed as a PF/C, but this does not adequately describe the role he played at Loyola, oftentimes initiating the offense as a change of pace, and being the number one late clock play finisher for the team, regardless of where he was on the floor. This resulted in a large number of unassisted shots in the midrange and at the rim, which are some evidences of his potential for self-creation. However, his lack of assists and propensity for turnovers (negative A/TO, 18.2% TO), especially at such a low level of competition, probably would have deterred many from believing in his potential as a decision maker at the next level. Additionally, his low number of dunks would probably have raised questions about his athletic ability as a big. With this said, it is important to consider that his role was primarily as a perimeter player handling and shooting the ball, carrying an immense load in terms of playmaking (29.4% USG), and wouldn’t be asked to do the things that he did in college at the next level. This season alone, playing in a role that is more suitable to him, Aldama had 48 dunks and a 2.8:1 A/TO. When players can be scaled down and into roles that are more fitting, they can defy the expectation sets and constraints placed on them due to their statistical profiles.

2) Movement/Plyometric abilities, how translatable the ways players are winning/succeeding are to higher levels of competition

Additionally, statistics are unable to show and track how players move across the court, how they slide their feet defensively, how high their shooting release is, and how well players can control their bodies. Sure, some of this is encapsulated in statistics generally, but sometimes it can be difficult to tease out differences in profiles without watching yourself. To demonstrate this, I will compare the driving profiles of two relatively recent lottery picks, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and Johnny Davis.

On paper, you might even be able to make the argument that Johnny Davis has the better profile to succeed as a driver in the NBA – while he was a year older and had a smaller unassisted diet both in the midrange and at the rim, Johnny was a better finisher at the rim by percentage than Shai, and also recorded more dunks. Both players had relatively low assisted percentages in the midrange and at the rim, shot relatively well in both spots on high volume, and are generally similar sizes. Without knowing what we know now (or just simply watching the games back then), it might be difficult to project who would be more effective at getting to and scoring at the rim in the NBA.

The statistical profiles do not show the qualitative nature of these rim and midrange attempts. Most of Johnny’s midrange game was predicated on using his strength and experience to get to his spots – he almost played bullyball at times, backing down smaller Big 10 guards and shooting over defenders. His straight line drives were more set up by screeners, and you could see that he lacked the high-end handle or athleticism to generate these types of looks against better defenders. On the contrast, Shai employed an impressive array of dribble moves, as well his rare deceleration and contortion to generate a difficult diet of rim attempts. With improved spacing in the NBA, Shai would have even more room to navigate – it was easy to project him to be a better rim finisher in the NBA than in college if you watched a few games.

Another example of a guy who won similarly to Johnny Davis is Jarrett Culver – an all time miss from me. At the time, I thought that Culver’s profile was rock solid and that if he developed any semblance of a jump shot, he would be an easy bet to be a jumbo handler or secondary initiator in the NBA.

Statistically, his profile is pretty nice – it’s easy to see that his shooting efficiency isn’t great, but you could’ve probably attributed that to his high unassisted diet and seen that his 3pt rate was high enough to suggest he’s a confident shooter. His at rim and dunks profile suggests that he is a quality athlete, and would be able to get to the rim in the NBA. However, knowing what we know now, Culver’s driving game was far too predicated on strength and size against smaller defenders; his lack of advanced handle, counters, and burst were dooming to his prospects in terms generating rim offense against NBA caliber opposition. Additionally, the hitch in his jump shot curtailed his development there, which just added to the issues of players not needing to account for him on the 3pt line, which made driving opportunities even more difficult. Just because a player is good at something at the collegiate level doesn’t necessarily mean that they will continue to succeed in this area at the next level – watching the games and understanding physical traits gives you the best chance at both projecting what aspects of their game players might improve at and what is unlikely to translate.

CONCLUSION

The growth in interested in viewing basketball with an analytical lens and increased volume of scouts who employ these methods is unquestionably a good thing – I am not writing this article to be a proponent of reverting to eye-test basketball. Queries and advanced metrics are the most effective method to efficiently sort out who might be a prospect from who isn’t, understand player tendencies, skills, and deficiencies at a high level quickly, and identify who you might be missing out on as a potential player. However, I am pushing back on the notion that basketball can be viewed solely thought this paradigm, and that a combination of the eye test and analytics is necessary to arrive at a holistic conclusion on a draft prospect. In my next article, I intend to dive deeper into the use of certain advanced statistics in order to show the biases in these metrics, in an effort to further convince you that watching basketball is necessary in order to talk about basketball.

STATISTICAL INDICATORS TEND TO FAVOR/BIAS THESE TYPES OF PLAYERS

1) Okay players on good teams

2) Productive big men

3) Players who are efficient on low volume