Are you watching the playoffs?
Are you watching them and thinking about what they might mean for this year’s draft?
We’re in a little bit of a weird place, right? The consensus top three players are fours and fives, but all the value is in big wings. Unlike a year ago, there isn’t an easy pathway to sorting out the top of the draft based on positional value. That ballhandling, playmaking 6-7 wing every team craves isn’t out there at the top of this draft. Maybe a Cade Cunningham or Scottie Barnes is hiding in the weeds, but if so, it’s much less obvious this time around.
Similarly, we have some good bigs in this draft, but we don’t have an Evan Mobley-type, whose switchability is so obvious that it would allay concerns about the decreasing value of centers in the postseason. Conversely, in a world where either having a P.J. Tucker-type body or just being a 6-6 guy who doesn’t suck has exponentially more value in the games that matter most, a lot of energy must necessarily tilt toward finding those types of players in the draft.
The top three players in this draft are bigs, with one being a true rim-protecting five. At least two other traditional centers are on every lottery board, and if you made a consensus mock draft right now, you’d see a generous sprinkling of players shorter than 6-5 as well. With centers in particular, we run into issues of diminishing returns. You can play one center, but never more; meanwhile, you can play as many 6-7 guys as you want in today’s NBA, provided at least one of them can dribble.
Despite that, teams continue to overvalue taking big centers at the top of the draft. We’ve had 18 centers drafted in the top six picks since 2002; only three of them have played in an All-Star Game, and in the case of Chris Kaman, we’re defining this term extremely broadly. Should Mobley and Deandre Ayton eventually make it, we’ll be at five. Woohoo.
Mobley proves the exception to the rule — a 7-foot center who plays as a perimeter player, particularly on defense. Meanwhile the best offensive center in the league (Nikola Jokić) was picked 46th, the best defensive center (Rudy Gobert) was picked 27th, and this year’s other 7-foot All-Stars (Jarrett Allen and Joel Embiid) were picked 22nd and third respectively.
On the flip side, we’ve had a perimeter All-Star selected in the top five of every draft since 2010, if we assume one of Cunningham or Barnes breaks through soon. And we’re on a stretch of 20 straight drafts in the top six. A couple of them stretch the definition of “All-Star” a bit (Andrew Wiggins was voted in, and Devin Harris and D’Angelo Russell each made it once), but most were legit.
Overall, we’re talking about 27 All-Star perimeter players from 19 drafts, and 23 of them were no-doubt-about-it, All-Star-caliber players. Despite the zest for size at the top of the draft, most of these stars weren’t that big; only Kevin Durant, LeBron James, Ben Simmons and Brandon Ingram were taller than 6-7.
So … do you want to pick from the bin that provided 27 All-Stars or the bin that gave us three?
I bring this up for two fairly obvious reasons. First, I think teams are still guilty of overdrafting centers — James Wiseman, Mo Bamba, Dragan Bender and Jahlil Okafor would be recent examples. Second, the consensus top three players in this particular class are all bigs, with perhaps the most highly touted one a 7-1 center.
So here’s the question … is Chet Holmgren (or Jabari Smith or Paolo Banchero) such an advantage at their positions that you’d prefer taking them to the chance of getting an All-Star perimeter player?
The flip side of this, of course, is what All-Star perimeter player? Have you been scouting some other NCAA, Hollinger? Teams would feel better about following my big-shunning strategy if there were wart-free wing options. This is, perhaps, not that kind of draft. Particularly in that sweet spot around 6-6 or 6-7, the talent pool is not safe for diving.
Wait, it gets worse. Two other issues underlie this year’s draft. First, this is one of the worst international draft classes in memory. Only two players have a realistic chance of going in the top 20, and neither played well even in relatively weak overseas leagues. Second, there is an absolutely staggering number of meh shooting guards for teams to sort through. We may set some kind of record for 6-4 guys who end up in France; several of them have been getting lottery buzz, for some reason, but I don’t have more than a couple in my top 20.
Nonetheless, teams must press on with the task of selecting the best talent and determining the best positional fits. And there is actually talent in this draft; it was harder to winnow my list down to 20 or so than I expected. It’s just hiding in some different places than you might have originally expected.
As is my recent pattern, I’m revealing my top 23 (with three sleepers included!) just after Tuesday night’s lottery and saving the rest of my top 75 for June, when we know for sure who is staying in the draft.
Why 20? Historically, there are about 20 players who end up mattering from each draft. Limiting myself this way forces me to think harder about who that 20 might be. I don’t use that as a hard and fast rule if I really love or hate the draft, but this year I have exactly 20, plus my three favorites from the shooting guard blahscape tacked on the end.
Here’s how my board looks:
Jabari Smith driving against Murray State. (John Reed / USA Today)
TIER 1: The two biggest fish in a medium-size pond
1. Jabari Smith Jr. | 6-10 freshman |PF | Auburn
Smith is an unusual player for a top overall pick because he didn’t always dominate games athletically. He had unusually low rates of rebounds, blocks and steals for a prospect of this caliber and shot just 43.9 percent on 2s in SEC games. (Reminder: I often rely on stats in conference games because they winnow out the early-season joke games against St. Leo’s and Incarnate Word.)
So what’s the case for Smith? Let’s start with his jumper, which is just smooth as butter. Smith might have the best shooting form of any prospect I’ve evaluated since Michael Porter Jr. launching perfect parabolas toward the rim and having the footwork to get into this stroke during live play. At a legit 6-10, Smith can rise over anybody and launch, providing something of an offensive cheat code that should set up the rest of his game as he develops.
Meanwhile, his athletic gifts are also pretty significant. Some of his defensive clips had me cackling, yelling, “Noooooo don’t do it!” at my monitor while some rando college guard decided to try his luck isoing Smith off the dribble.
Smith can slide his feet like a guard, plus his length allows him to play a half step farther off dribblers and cut off any driving angles. He sometimes gives a little too much cushion and will need to play closer in the pros, but his switchability at the pro level seems rock solid. He also rarely gets faked off his feet, a bugaboo for a lot of bigs who otherwise can hold up on switches. Quick, hard changes of direction occasionally leave him a step behind, but he also has the “catch-up” ability to get back in the play and block shots from behind.
With his body still filling out, Smith has a low post defense that’s maybe not quite as clinical. Opponents could duck in and get position, especially when Walker Kessler was off the floor and Smith had to play the five, and he didn’t contest their shots as aggressively as you might hope. Adding some muscle obviously will help here, but I’d be leery of playing him much at the five in the NBA until he adds more lower body strength.
Finally, there’s the age issue. With a May 2003 birthdate, Smith is six months younger than Banchero and a full year younger than Holmgren. He’s physically young too, as he’s still pretty clearly growing into his body. In a draft without a surefire future All-Star, he seems the one most likely to earn that honor.
2. Paolo Banchero | 6-10 freshman | PF | Duke
Prospect-wise, Banchero isn’t perfect. He’s not an elite athlete or a great defender, his arms are a bit short for a big, and his shooting stroke could stand to be more consistent (33.8 percent from 3 and 72.9 percent from the line). He’s a bit on the older side for a one-and-done, and his rates of steals and blocks are pretty sad for a lottery prospect.
OK, now that I’m done whining … Banchero is also an attacking, off-the-dribble shot creator at 6-10, and he’s not some shot-hunting pig either. He averaged an eye-opening 6.3 assists per 100 possessions last season, often acting as a de facto point guard for a Duke team that didn’t have a true lead guard. It’s pretty easy to envision a world in which he’s his team’s best or second-best offensive option, particularly if his line-drive outside shot gets a little more air under it and a big more consistency.
Defensively, Banchero’s lack of length gives him issues contesting shots and protecting the rim, which might limit his utility as a small-ball five. Otherwise, I thought his tape was pretty good. His clips in isolation defense show a guy who is comfortable sliding his feet out on the perimeter, and he didn’t default to giving yards of space and allowing easy pull-up 3s the way some bigs do. In his best moments, he could play close enough to remove any pull-ups at all, like this:
Banchero seems to change direction pretty well, but in straight-line speed challenges he is vulnerable; little fast guys give him problems, but he can defend anyone two through four on the perimeter pretty capably.
Overall, he’s a fairly safe bet as a high-production four, one with plus offense and who can get to the point of being solid defensively.
TIER II: High ceilings, but more speculative
3. Jaden Ivey | 6-4 sophomore | SG | Purdue
Ivey is the one player in this draft who is most reminiscent of Ja Morant, with a blast-off first step that sends him rocketing toward the rim. It should be even more effective in the open space of the NBA versus a Purdue approach that was heavily geared toward entering the ball to its two behemoth post players.
Alas, the Morant comparisons break down once we get into the decision-making realm. Ivey barely averaged more assists than turnovers in Big Ten play; his good clips are ridiculous, but there is a lot of head-scratching chaff to work through before you get to that wheat. His shooting is also a question mark, with a below-the-shoulder set shot similar to Morant’s that yielded 32.2 percent from 3 and 73.98 percent from the line in his two years with the Boilermakers. Put simply, Ivey is going to be an offensive skill-development challenge for whatever team picks him, but the upside reward is an All-Star-caliber shot creator from the guard spot.
Defensively it’s a similar story. The physical toolset is there, but the application of those tools is a bit inconsistent. Ivey can get caught upright and blown by at times but doesn’t concede space and can still stay with dribblers. Opponents rarely went at him in isolation, perhaps because of the giant dude waiting in the paint behind him, but also because it didn’t look profitable the few times opponents tried. Ivey can slide his feet and explodes off the floor to challenge shots, sometimes surprising shooters who thought they had themselves a nice pull-up.
He needs the defensive output to be more consistent, especially if he’s juggling a prominent offensive role at the same time. The tape from his freshman year is actually even better, perhaps because less was being asked of him at the other end.
Overall, this is an eye-test call. Ivey’s college track record is wartier than you’d prefer for a pick this high, especially from a sophomore, but nobody else in this draft is in Ivey’s league as an off-the-dribble creative force.
4. Chet Holmgren | 7-1 freshman | C | Gonzaga
A lot of the concerns about Holmgren have to deal with his frame. At 7-1 and just 195 pounds, will he be more prone to injuries? Will he hold up to the pounding of a routine NBA game multiplied by 82? The visual is hard to ignore — he looks like somebody might break him in half — but I’m wondering if these worries are missing the real issue. Career-length issues for bigs are usually driven by lower extremity injuries; the fact that Holmgren’s light build puts less strain on his knees and ankles could end up being a major positive for his long-term durability.
The real thing to wonder about with Holmgren is whether drafting a 7-1 center in the top five makes any sense unless he’s basically guaranteed to play in the All-Star game. Holmgren definitely has some huge positives — few bigs have shown as much juice off the dribble at a young age, his 3-point shot is already reliable enough to be a passable long-range floor spacer (39.0 percent from 3 as a freshman), and he finishes everything around the basket (73.7 percent on 2s).
Holmgren also controls the paint like few others, with an absurd 12.6 percent block rate and 28.7 percent Defensive Rebound Rate. NBA teams still are skittish about playing zone, but Holmgren could be an awesome zone defender.
Three issues prevent him from ranking higher here. First, the skinny body really limits his ability to have any kind of post game. There is virtually no cost to switching a guard on him. He can shoot and handle a bit, but offensively he’s trending toward Myles Turner.
Second, nobody talks about this, but Holmgren is a year older than most freshmen, with a May 2002 birthdate. For comparison, the next player on my board, Bennedict Mathurin, has played two years at Arizona but is a month younger than Holmgren.
Lastly, the defensive tape is perhaps not quite as awesome as the stats might make you believe, particularly in switch situations. The Synergy stats say he performed well against isolations, but several of those plays featured missed bunnies at the rim, and the sample is small enough that it matters. Holmgren typically gave up a driving lane to one side and then relied on his length to contest at the summit, but often didn’t get there in time.
Occasionally, it went worse than that, particularly against pro-caliber guards. Here Santa Clara’s Jalen Williams (an underrated prospect!) just flat-out drops him:
Care to see the movie again?
Holmgren held up much better when bigs tried to take him off the dribble in closer quarters; there just isn’t enough room to get away from his arms. Opponents will see his body and think they can mash him in the paint, but that is likely to be a horrible mistake that ends badly. His tentacles swallow up everything in the paint, and he could very well lead the league in blocks every year.
Because of that, and the talent gradient we’re about to hit, this is probably the best slot for Holmgren. I’m not a huge fan of drafting centers, as you can tell, but the risk-reward equation turns more positive after the first three names are off the board.
TIER III: Reliably solid wings
5. Bennedict Mathurin | 6-6 sophomore | SF | Arizona
One can argue it’s a reach to take Mathurin at No. 5, since it’s unlikely he’ll ever be the best player on his team. But because of his positional value and skill set, even his mid-tier scenarios make him a $20 million player in today’s NBA. Few players have more obvious 3-and-D utility than Mathurin, an athletic 6-6 Canadian of Haitian extraction who came through the NBA’s development academy in Mexico City. He’s still evolving into his game, but in two years at Arizona he shot 38.7 percent from 3 and 78.9 percent from the line.
Mathurin still needs to tighten his handle and improve his feel, factors that could limit him from moving beyond a 3-and-D role at the next level, but his size and plus athleticism give him outs even if he never turns into a ballhandling wizard. Additionally, he doubled his assist rate as a sophomore at Arizona, showing visible progress as an on-ball creator.
Defensively, Mathurin might be more “solid” than true stopper. He’ll get into the ball but is not quite as fluid laterally as you might hope. He also can sit up in his stance at times, permitting blow-bys. More often, he’s able to stay solid and use his size and length to contest late, but he’s rarely an active disruptor on that end.
6. Shaedon Sharpe | 6-6 freshman | SG/SF | Kentucky
Teams have a lot of questions about Sharpe, questions that aren’t going to get answered by seeing him work out against a chair in Chicago at the combine. Why didn’t he play at all for Kentucky this year? How much did that set him back?
While teams comb through background parts and go back through his EYBL tape, the inevitably of the upside scenarios is what’s likely to see him chosen high. He could fail spectacularly, but the bar for this player archetype is pretty low as far as eventual success goes. Sharpe is 6-6 with a 6-11 wingspan and can really shoot; watching him work out on the floor before Kentucky’s NCAA Tournament game, I found it pretty clear he’ll be a viable NBA floor spacer from Day 1.
He’s also athletic enough that he was ranked as the top prospect in the Class of 2023 before reclassifying. How many guys like that, who also had elite shooting ability, have failed? Yes, there are questions about his feel and other, secondary lines of inquiry given that nobody has seen him play top-drawer competition. If he were a center or point guard, I’d have him several places lower. But a 6-6 wing who can shoot? Even if he “fails” in terms of achieving stardom, that still becomes a decent value proposition.
7. Keegan Murray | 6-8 sophomore | SF/PF | Iowa
Murray is probably the most head-scratching player in this draft. On the one hand, he’s a 6-8 forward who put up video-game stats in the Big Ten. Don’t overthink this, right? But on the other hand, he was a much older player (turning 22 in August, he’s the second-oldest player on my list today), and his tape isn’t quite as alluring as his stats. Murray is neither a high-wire athlete nor a knockdown shooter. He’s fine and all — 37.3 percent from 3 and 74.9 percent from the line in two years at Iowa — but it’s his all-around wiles as a scorer that provide his real value.
It’s fair to question how much daylight that part of his game will receive at the NBA level, because he doesn’t create easy separation and isn’t a great distributor.
Defensively, it’s more of the same. His size and length help him get hands on balls, but he’s not some elite stopper out there. He offers some secondary rim protection but didn’t always show great awareness, and his team’s defense was consistently its undoing. Murray has long arms and can slide his feet on the ball, so he should hold up decently enough against wings and fours.
What I get back to is that we’ve seen this movie before with guys like T.J. Warren and Cedric Ceballos — smooth forwards who lacked top-drawer athleticism but had crazy feel for scoring and finding buckets in the flow of the game. The league undervalues guys like this sometimes because they don’t have an easy box to slide into, but I’m pretty confident Murray can be a rotation forward at worst, and the upside is a 20-point scorer.
TIER IV: Let’s get crazy
Here’s where I suspect my draft board deviates pretty radically from the consensus. Partly, this is because the late lottery this year appears a bit soft in terms of surefire NBA talent, and partly, this is because I value certain things more than others. The one accelerated the other: If the talent curve is relatively flat, stylistic preferences inevitably matter more.
With that said, fasten your seat belts…
8. Jeremy Sochan | 6-9 freshman | PF | Baylor
A Polish citizen who grew up mostly in England, Sochan offers an alluring combination of present value and long-term upside as a high-energy forward with some shot-creation possibilities. Although he’s 6-9, Sochan can handle the ball and get to the cup with long strides and loosey-goosey quickness. He can make some decent reads as a passer, and he shot 60.7 percent inside the arc in Big 12 games. His shooting is more speculation but wasn’t as bad as the percentages make it seem (29.6 percent from 3, 58.9 percent from the line). His form needs work, but it’s not broken.
Sochan is better east and west than vertically; he’s quick, but he doesn’t pop off the floor. Relative to a player like Banchero, he offers more potential switchability and could even do work as a small-ball five as his body fills out. His tape against guards is very good, playing close enough that they can’t just walk into pull-ups, even contested ones, while still mostly holding his own when they tested his speed. Sochan leaves his feet too willingly and good crossovers sometimes leave him wobbly. He also had problems when dribblers got into his body, something that likely will become less problematic with more strength and experience.
Overall, we’re in a different area now in terms of risk-reward proposition. It’s possible Sochan is never anything more than an energy backup, but his upside scenarios are so tempting that he’s worth grabbing once my top seven names are off the board.
9. Dyson Daniels | 6-6 shooting guard | G League Elite
We’re getting into a type here in the late lottery: Guys with poor left-tail outcomes because of their shooting, but enough on the right tail to make them worth pursuing regardless. Daniels isn’t a freak athlete, shot 52.5 percent from the line and 27.3 percent from 3 in the G League and needs an hour and a half to uncork his outside shot.
I’m a big fan anyway. Few players I saw this year were more obviously about the right things than Daniels; even as his teammates with Elite did whatever the hell it was they were doing, he was very consciously trying to play the right way, hit the open man and compete on defense. He guarded every opponent’s best player and was good at it, with size, competitiveness and anticipation for steals. He has a point guard’s handle and is a plus passer. While he isn’t an above-the-rim athlete, he’s able to finish in transition and draw fouls in the lane.
An Australian who is the same age as this year’s one-and-dones, Daniels came away with a statistical projection from his G League season that should be pretty positive: He averaged nearly two assists for every turnover, shot 54.9 percent inside the arc, had an 11.0 percent rebound rate from the guard spot and had high rates of steals and blocks. Some scouts I talked to compare him to Memphis’ Kyle Anderson in terms of an iffy shooter who can impact the game despite not being an elite athlete, but Daniels has more high-end outcomes than that because there is still time for his shot to come around.
10. Josh Minott | 6-8 freshman | SF/PF | Memphis
Jalen Duren and, to a lesser extent, Emoni Bates got a lot of the attention on Memphis this year, while Minott saw his role fluctuate wildly, and he was hardly playing by the end of the year. Minott is also a bad shooter (2 of 14 on 3s in 2021-22) and will be 19 1/2 on draft day, making him a bit old for a freshman.
And yet … the analytics on Minott are really impressive, with a sky-high steal rate of a big forward (3.6 per 100 possessions in AAC play), a positive assist-turnover rate and a 14.4 percent rebound rate despite often paying next to a lottery center. History says it would be folly to ignore a player who passes this deftly and gets his hand on this many balls at the defensive end. Even the shooting has some promise — he hit 75.4 percent from the line. It’s not like he was an empty offensive force either, scoring a very respectable 25.3 points per 100 possessions. He didn’t play much, but when he did, he was quite effective.
Defensively, Minott can be tight-hipped and slow with his first slide, and a bit over-reliant on using his hands to compensate for it. He also picks up a lot of fouls that way, part of his insane foul rate (6.2 per 100 possessions).
That said, Minott probably plays closer to the dribbler of any other player I saw in this size class, which is notable — players tell on themselves by how much cushion they give the dribbler. Minott has tremendous hands and long arms and legs; he uses the former to flick the ball from unsuspecting dribblers, and the latter to make up ground if he’s initially beat. Minott goes for the ball a bit too often, a high-risk strategy that can leave an open downhill run if it fails, and because he’s thin and has a high center of gravity, he can pick up fouls when opponents get into his body or spin off him.
11. Blake Wesley | 6-5 freshman | SG | Notre Dame
This is purely an upside play — there’s a chance Wesley ends up being terrible if his shooting and finishing don’t progress. It’s still worth taking Wesley here because his first-step quickness and lateral mobility provide a framework for some elite two-way outcomes … if he can just figure out how to shoot and make a layup. In this draft class, only Ivey can surpass Wesley’s explosiveness getting downhill to the rim, something that should be a much greater weapon at the NBA level.
Wesley’s offensive stats from his one season are a tad underwhelming. While he scored in volume (29.8 points per 100 possessions), he shot 47.1 percent from the arc, 30.3 percent on 3s and 65.7 percent from the line and barely had more assists than turnovers. Yikes. He’ll benefit from the more open space of the NBA floor, but there’s a lot to clean up here.
Where I feel better about Wesley is on the defensive end. He can move his feet laterally, contest shots and had an impressive steal rate (2.8 thefts per 100 possessions). You’d like to see him get into the ball a little bit more on the perimeter and concede fewer pull-ups, but he’s long and bouncy enough to bother players when they rise up. Bizarrely, he only blocked two shots all season — another sign he may be leaving some money on the table at that end.
As a result, I see two outs for success here: first as a downhill shot creator and second as a wing defensive stopper. Hit on both, and you’ve really got something. I initially had Wesley ranked lower but comparing his best-case scenarios with the less intriguing upside scenarios that follow, I had to move him up the list even if there’s a decent chance he bombs because of his offense.
Tier V: Relatively safer and less spectacular
12. Jalen Duren | 6-11 freshman | C | Memphis
How much do you value having a decent center with some upside? I like Duren quite a bit but struggled with where to place him on my board because he’s a one-position player at the least valuable position, and chances are he’ll never stretch his game out to the 3-point line.
I’m extremely confident Duren can be a rotation center for a decade; how far beyond that he can get is a very open question. Is there enough rim running and shot blocking to be a legit starter? You wouldn’t trade a lottery pick for a backup five, so the answer to this has to at least be a “maybe” to rank him here.
Nonetheless, Duren packs some real positives. He was an impactful college player even as a young freshman, he has a 7-5 wingspan and a solid enough frame to be a plus defender and rim-runner, and he made some notably good passes for a player of this ilk. He disappointed a bit as a rim protector, however; 3.9 blocks per 100 in the American Conference is fine but not exactly Holmgren territory, and he doesn’t explode off the floor on shot challenges the way you might like from an interior presence.
Memphis also switched him a lot and was clearly very comfortable with him defending on the perimeter, even against very small guards. I’d describe his feet as more “good” than “great;” he can be a little slow at times and at others had to give up excessive cushion to feel like he could keep in front. The biggest barrier for him is just that the bar for “switchable big” in the NBA is getting so darned high, especially as we get deeper into the postseason. He’s good enough to get there though.
13. A.J. Griffin | 6-6 freshman | SG | Duke
Griffin is 6-6 with a 7-foot wingspan and shot 44.7 percent from 3 on relatively high volume last year, which will be the press release summary from the team that picks him. That might have you thinking “3-and-D!” But let’s stop the presses on the D part.
Griffin’s defensive tape is … not good. He may have to play four, even at 6-6, because he has decent strength but his feet are stuck in concrete. He is very slow sliding his feet and reacting to an opponent’s first move and had absolutely no chance checking quick guards.
Going through his tape, I found it one thing to see ACC Player of the Year Alondes Williams cook him on a straight-line drive; when a random dude from Army did the same thing, that’s when the red flags really started flapping in the wind. Griffin’s indicator stats aren’t great either, with a pathetic steal rate for a wing (just 1.1 per 100 possessions in ACC play).
Offensively, he didn’t impress when he put it on the floor, but the threat of his shot does open lanes for him pretty easily and widen his margin for error. Also, did I mention his shooting? Griffin has a low release point but moves to get himself open and can knock down catch-and-shoots from a variety of platforms. I don’t see him being a guy who can come flying off screens locked-and-loaded, but he’s an elite catch-and-shoot threat from Day 1. That gives him value even if he struggles at the other end, and at just 19, there’s at least a shred of hope he can keep improving the defense.
14. TyTy Washington |6-3 freshman | PG | Kentucky
There’s an upside scenario that you have to think about with Washington, which is that John Calipari has a history of making guards look very ordinary, only to see them blow up when they get to the NBA. Devin Booker, Tyler Herro and Tyrese Maxey all come to mind. Is Washington another?
Maybe. He had a really good stretch in midseason before suffering an ankle injury against Florida, showing the ability to run the offense at 6-3, get to floaters and make the right decisions. There was nothing electrifying about it, and his push shot from the perimeter (35.0 percent from 3, 75.0 percent from the line) isn’t wowing anybody either, but he was low-key pretty darn efficient.
Defensively, Washington had a high steal rate and has the awareness to do some neat, subtle things; he’ll tilt his torso and arms diagonally while coming around screens to take away pocket passes, for instance. He’s not a suffocating defender overall, and for some reason seems to move much better to his left than to his right. Maybe it’s random, but he gave up a lot of blow-bys on that side.
All this probably adds more up to a solid third guard than anything special, especially since Washington was unusually old for a freshman and turns 21 in November. (He’s nearly the same age as Duke junior Wendell Moore, for example.)
15. Kendall Brown | 6-8 freshman | SF | Baylor
Brown may not provide enough offensively to be a starting-caliber player, but his odds of having a legit career seem pretty high because he’s 6-8, can pass and run and guard multiple positions. Guys like that fit in somewhere unless they’re complete disasters from the perimeter. In a league where 6-8 forwards who don’t suck become central pieces of the playoff rotation, he will have value.
Brown certainly gives some concern on offense. He shot 34.3 percent from 3 on extremely low volume and 67.3 percent from the line in his one season at Baylor — but his other indicator stats are halfway decent. He shot 63.8 percent inside the arc, scored at a respectable clip and showed halfway decent feel — his mistakes were often trying passes that were just beyond his level, but his feel didn’t seem deficient. In transition, he was good.
Defensively, Brown doesn’t have super long arms but his height and leaping allow him to get great contests on pull-up jump shooters, plus he seems to have pretty good intuition for exactly how much room to give while still being in position to bother the shot. He had a good steal rate with anticipation off the ball, but against dribblers, he isn’t a guy who impacts the ball much; he tries more to stay solid and keep the ball in front, and does a good job of it. Fast guards with enough runway could beat him with straight-line speed, but you’ll live with that from a combo forward.
Finally, Brown is only 19 with a prototype body for an NBA forward, so we shouldn’t dismiss upside scenarios out of hand here. I feel like he’s getting a bit forgotten because he’s no longer a “hot” name, but it’s not crazy to think he could go in the late lottery.
16. Tari Eason | 6-7 sophomore | SF | LSU
I have a sneaking suspicion that Eason’s wildness is going to work against him and cause him to slip in the draft; teams may have trouble sticking a fork into a defined role for him. Eason is a big wing with a solid frame who can guard anything from one to four, a disruptive defender whose rates of “stocks” are almost Matisse Thybulle-esque (4.5 steals and 2.5 blocks per 100 in SEC play, nearly matching what Thybulle did in the Pac 12 at the same age).
Wait, there’s more. He’s also an absurdly good rebounder for his size (15.7 rebound rate in the SEC!) and scored easily and efficiently last season. He shot 56.4 percent inside the arc with a massive free-throw rate, made 80.3 percent from the line and even hit 35.9 percent from 3 despite a funky-looking slingshot release that teams aren’t totally sure will translate to the pros. Did I mention he averaged 39.4 points per 100 possessions and had a 34.5 PER in the SEC?
So why is he down here and not in the top five? Because it’s not clear what he did — basically, putting his head down and burrowing to the rim regardless of the situation — has any utility at the next level. Eason isn’t passing — he had two turnovers for every assist, not to mention about 15 true shot attempts — and a lot of his best moments came in transition. If you don’t believe in the shooting, he may not have a role in a half-court offense; given that the previous season at Cincinnati he shot 24.1 percent from 3 and 57.4 percent from the line, this is a realistic fear.
Defensively, he is really good laterally, definitely in the top tier in this draft class. Even small guards had all kinds of trouble turning the corner against him. He has a tendency to rise up out of his stance at times, which can leave him vulnerable to a good hesi move.
However, the same pattern of overaggression bordering on recklessness that marked his offense also was his undoing on defense. Eason committed a whopping 7.7 fouls per 100 possessions in SEC play and had a particularly bad habit of crash-landing into 3-point shooters while challenging shots.
Finally, Eason is a bit older than some of the other players on this list, which is why I put guys like Brown and Griffin ahead of him.
At this point in the draft though, I think his athleticism has to win out. Eason is clearly an NBA athlete and fits a size profile that is constantly sought throughout the league. If he even gets to the 25th percentile as a half-court offensive player, his transition, rebounding and defense will make him a valuable performer.
17. E.J. Liddell | 6-7 junior | PF | Ohio State
I’m a bit higher on Liddell than most, just because I can’t help thinking that he’s so darn smart that he’s going to figure this out one way or another. Watching him defend against guards is a good example; even though he’s at a speed disadvantage, he plays just close enough to stop them from walking into pull-up jumpers and forces them to dribble into his help.
For instance, here’s Wisconsin Johnny Davis trying to get a pull-up on him:
That IQ translates to other facets, such as his timing for off-ball shot blocks that made him an elite college rim protector despite being 6-7 with average leaping ability. Seemingly every time I watch an Ohio State game, I see Liddell do some random, clever thing that you don’t normally see from college players.
Liddell added the 3-ball to his repertoire this season, knocking down 37.4 percent on decent volume, and has become a very good pull-up shooter. Despite lacking crazy hops and a deceptive handle, he drew a ton of fouls; his strength obviously helps here and should acquit him well against fours and fives at the NBA level.
Overall, you’d like him to be quicker laterally, especially with his first defensive slide, where now he can look stuck in concrete at times, and you question how much of his offensive game translates to the next level. Nonetheless, I’m buying him as a 3-and-D combo forward who can be effective in a variety of lineups.
18. Dalen Terry | 6-7 sophomore | SF | Arizona
Here’s a name you maybe weren’t expecting. Terry is still on the fence about whether to stay in the draft, but I have him rated as a first-rounder if he stays because of his ability to handle the ball, defend multiple positions and … hopefully … shoot? Terry’s stroke isn’t overtly terrible — he made 35.0 percent from 3 on low volume and 68.0 percent from the line across his two seasons at Arizona — but he’ll need to be a more persistent perimeter threat as a pro.
The good news is that tall wings who can handle the ball and defend almost always find themselves in an NBA rotation, even if they aren’t high-wire athletes or electrifying scorers. Terry operated as Arizona’s de facto point guard this year, handing out nearly three assists for every turnover, while on the defensive end he ripped 2.5 steals per 100 possessions. One would have liked to see him play a more prominent and aggressive scoring role; between Mathurin (above) and Arizona’s two quality big men, at times one could forget Terry was on the floor.
The tape shows a defender who is more “good” than “remarkable.” Some of his best stuff came against smaller players, where he could give a bit more cushion with his length but still had the quickness to keep the play in front of him. Against bigger players, he gave the same cushion but couldn’t affect the shot as well, and he shuns physicality a bit because of his skinny frame.
19. Mark Williams | 7-0 sophomore | C | Duke
In a word, thwack! Williams’ 7-7 wingspan makes him the top rim-protection prospect in this draft; Auburn’s Walker Kessler blocked more shots but also got cooked a lot more often, whereas Williams never got out over his skis hunting blocks and forced opponents to play over the top of him.
Those who dared to challenge him at the summit suffered unfortunate outcomes. Kevin McCullar, meet Mark Williams:
Of course, the big question with Williams is what can he do on the offensive end. His 72.7 percent mark from the line offers some optimism that he can make 15-footers consistently, but he rarely posted up and wasn’t a big part of elbow or high post actions.
The biggest reason to be down on Williams, again, is just his position. Even if you feel pretty good about him carving out a 10-year career as a backup center, that’s not enough value to take him in the top 20. His shot blocking, physical tools and short-range shooting touch offer realistic upside as a starter, however, and that would be the selling point for sliding him into my top 20 here.
20. Jake LaRavia | 6-9 junior | PF | Wake Forest
I originally had LaRavia in my “sleepers” section, but so many people have moved him up their draft boards lately that I feel like I’m not even ahead of the average on him anymore.
LaRavia is the oldest player in my top 20, a relative unknown who transferred from Indiana State before the season and then blew up for the Demon Deacons. While his teammate Williams won ACC Player of the Year, I’m more encouraged by the pro prospects of LaRavia.
Defensively, in particular, he shows multi-positional potential. He has size and strength but also had the feet to comfortably stay with guards. His strong lower body and good balance help him pester dribblers without overcommitting or getting pushed off stride. He rarely fouls but has active hands that swiped 2.7 steals per 100 possessions and is able to challenge shots without flying into shooters. Few players I saw on tape were more adept at forcing dribblers to beat them with contested 2s. There may be some quickness limitations that show against NBA athletes, but in the ACC, they switched him against everybody and he aced the test.
LaRavia’s shooting will be another topic of discussion, as he hit 38.4 percent this season but on very low volume. Career marks of 37.1 percent from 3 and 74.3 percent from the line should ease some concerns here. LaRavia checks out in other respects, as he’s a good passer and hit 61.6 percent of his shots inside the arc. Nitpickers will also note he’s not a great rebounder.
TIER VI: My three sleeper shooting guards
21. Ryan Rollins | 6-4 sophomore | SG | Toledo
In a sea of blah shooting guard prospects after Ivey and Wesley, Rollins is the one at which I’d take the first crack. He won’t turn 20 until July and was the best player in the Mid-American Conference, and his weaknesses (3-point shooting, on-ball defense) are the type of things that seem fixable in a development program. With high rates of steals and rebounds, nearly two dimes for every turnover and a 53.6 percent mark inside the arc, he checks a lot of boxes in categories that correlate with pro success.
I originally had him much higher than this, but his defensive tape was a crushing disappointment. As I noted above, players tell on themselves by how far off the ballhandler they play; the more comfortable they are with their own lateral quickness, the closer they guard the ball. (As a human traffic cone back in the day, I perhaps internalized this lesson more than most.)
Rollins concedes acres of space, frequently allowing no-dribble 3s from the triple threat position, and yet had a lot of trouble beating his man to the spot and cutting off penetration. If this was happening in the MAC, one shudders to think what NBA guards might do to him one-on-one. Rollins’ athletic indicators and plus feel makes one think this is fixable, but there’s a chance he’s just so flammable on defense that he can’t stay on the court.
22. Wendell Moore | 6-5 junior | SG | Duke
Moore kind of got lost as scouts focused on Banchero and Williams at Duke, and he played a more limited role on a talented offensive squad. However, he had a good junior year and won’t turn 21 until September, and his ability to pass, defend, make open shots and score in the open court all make him a strong candidate to become a plus role player as a pro.
Moore could likely stand to improve his finishing and overall scoring package inside the 3-point line, but his rates of rebounds, assists and steals all are among the best of any shooting guard prospect this year, and those indicators usually point toward pro success more than scoring averages. Additionally, he shot 41.3 percent from 3 and 81.5 percent from the line and usually guarded the opponent’s best player. The 3-and-D archetype is pretty clearly there, and in a fairly athletic package that might be able to go up another notch with some conditioning gains.
He has enough length and leaping ability to alter shots when he goes up to contest them, and when he did get beat off the dribble, he had a good chase-down gear to block opponents from behind. He can get a little upright, and it looked like he was trying a bit too hard to avoid fouling; changes of direction also sometimes sent him veering into a ditch. It seems he’s more likely to get picked in the second round, but he has starter upside to go with a pretty high floor.
23. Jalen Williams | 6-6 junior | SG | Santa Clara
Scouts I talked to have pretty openly admitted that Williams was underscouted during the season, a classic Bad Geography Guy in the far-flung West Coast Conference. Even if scouts happened to be in the Bay Area, chances are they weren’t driving the extra hour to Santa Clara when so much other scoutable action was at hand. Now that teams are doing their film work, he’s a guy everyone is doubling back to watch.
Williams was one of the best players in a vastly improved WCC this season, a huge, solidly built point guard at 6-6 who is likely to play the wing at the next level. Williams offers a plus secondary ballhandler who can run the offense in a pinch, and if you buy his shooting development (39.6 percent from 3 this year and 80.9 percent from the line), that’s a very helpful weakside offensive player.
Defensively, Williams would likely benefit from a move to the wing. He has size and mostly opted to stay solid against opposing point guards, but he wasn’t capable of pressuring smaller players into mistakes and mostly opted for low-risk containment strategies. He can be a little stiff, and even WCC guards weren’t afraid of taking him on; he might do better sizing up rather than down, as he seemed more comfortable getting into the body of bigger players closer to the rim.
Williams also isn’t a great athlete, so teams would be buying more on size, skill and feel. But as noted above, he had the moves to fake top prospects like Holmgren out of their shoes and is rapidly losing his “sleeper” status as the league does its homework on him.
Related reading
Vecenie: Post-lottery mock draft has Jabari Smith Jr. at No. 1
(Photo illustration: Wes McCabe / The Athletic; photos: C. Morgan Engel, Norm Hall, Aaron J. Thornton / Getty Images)
