The Unscheme-ables: Scouting College Basketball’s “Playoff Talents”
Note: this article was originally published at The Stepien on January 28, 2022
Background: Constructing the Playoff Talent Index
My previous piece at The Stepien looked at NBA prospects who potentially project as leading rim protectors for NBA teams, highlighting over 20 prospects who could function in various types of defensive schemes. For my follow-up piece I wanted to take the opposite view: which prospects are the most difficult to scheme against as a defense when it’s locked in, like an NBA playoff setting?
I wanted to again link this to how actual NBA offenses adjust to the playoffs, so looked at the change of play-type usage from regular season to the playoffs over the last three seasons. Isolations increase the most, as there’s only so much you can do to strategize against a great one-on-one scorer. Both pick and rolls and catch and shoot plays increase as well (though not by as much or as consistently), which makes intuitive sense as well, simple and easy to run on a repeatable basis. The decreases are largest in transition, off-screens and post-ups, though hand-offs and cuts decrease as well.
Using this data and mapping onto Synergy Sports’ play-type efficiency and volume data for the NCAA, I created a custom index: let’s call it the Playoff Talent Index. This index is meant to show which college players thrive the most in these simply-constructed, repeatable offensive actions. The index incorporates efficiency for all NCAA players on isolations, all offense derived from pick and rolls as the handler when the defense commits, runners, and guarded catch and shoot possessions. I added in jump shots taken all the dribble, as both revealing a high degree of shooting touch and opening up the prospect to attack the vulnerable spots on the floor. In all, these are quick-hitting actions which their teammates depend on rather than vice-versa, though all still require placement within their team’s respective offensive context and a prospect’s developmental arc in interpreting the data.
To tie volume to efficiency and role, the Playoff Talent Index calculates points gained over above-median efficiency for these play types, per game played, with a minimum of ten attempts on the season for each category for it to count. For example, if the median points per possession of any college player with 10+ attempts on isos is 0.8, if a player achieves 1.0 point per possession on two iso possessions per game, he would get a +0.4 contribution to his Playoff Talent Index (0.2 x 2).
Of course, defense is also a factor in even getting on the court in the playoffs, so I added in isolation and PNR ball handler Synergy data for that as well: unlikely to drastically change the outcome, but hopefully further narrowing who can stay on the court in a high-intensity situation. Synergy stats for defense is not as reliable compared to offense, so I’m watching that side of the ball closely during my analysis while weighting it less than the offensive numbers.
Narrowing the Field and Proof of Concept:
As expected for a field covering all levels of play, this index naturally favors older guards and doesn’t adjust for quality of an offense. To narrow the field among those who scored well in this index, I created three sub-thresholds, at least one of which must be exceeded to take note and priority given to those who met several of the following: 1. is NBA shooting guard height or better, 2. is not an older player, and 3. plays for a team in the top 50 (according to KenPom.com). By prioritizing those who met these I can more easily catch the outlier prospects who would even have a remote shot at the NBA level.
Players who meet all three conditions who also score well in the Playoff Talent Index have a very high success rate in the NBA, often among the premier high school prospects to begin with. Since 2010, I count 23 players who have maintained consistent NBA relevance after scoring well in the Playoff Talent Index while meeting all thresholds. These include several top 2 picks in Cade Cunningham (1.9 on the Playoff Talent Index), Lonzo Ball (2.7), Brandon Ingram (1.4) and Victor Oladipo (1.1) as well as late lottery picks Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (1.8) and Mikal Bridges (1.6). An impressive showing for the least-common sub-group. The index also liked savvy do-it-all players who function as very good playmakers in college due to high feel for the game: Draymond Green snuck in with a 1.2 score, as did similar skeleton key-type players Kyle Anderson (1.5), Scottie Barnes (1.3) and Grant Williams (1.2).
While the hit rates are lower, there have been very good players to come out of any combination of thresholds among those who score highly in the Playoff Talent Index, with Fred VanVleet (2.4), Klay Thompson (2.5), Desmond Bane (2.8) and CJ McCollum (3.0) as some prime examples. Several very good and All-Star level players scored slightly lower, as well, such as Donovan Mitchell (1.3), Malcolm Brogdon (1.5) and Kemba Walker (1.4). In this exercise I’ll be keeping these success story examples in mind as benchmarks, as well as degree of out-performance in the Playoff Talent Index, as about 8% per year exceed a rating of 1.0, 2% exceed 2.0, and only a handful hit 3.0.
As a caveat, I do want to be clear that just because a player isn’t here does not mean I think they wouldn’t be a useful playoff player, of course, as many young very high usage but middling efficiency players miss the list. Elite athleticism is something not picked up on this scale, as promising players still refining their skill like 2020 #1 pick Anthony Edwards in his lone college career will do poorly. This exercise is meant to reveal some obvious playmakers staring us in the face with their elite shotmaking, and figure out what we even value in these prospects and how much. We don’t need an index to tell us why players like Paolo Banchero or Zion Williamson are special, but many others take longer to be discovered, and hopefully we can find some new ones.
Note I’ll be updating this piece towards the end of the draft cycle to incorporate final season scores and any new additions, broadening to non-NCAA prospects as well.
Without further ado, my groupings of players with a chance of being “unscheme-able” scoring and passing talents for NBA playoff offenses:
Potential Starter-Level Playoff Talents:
1. Jabari Smith, Auburn
Playoff Talent Index: 2.1
Closest Play-type Comps Among Prior Successes: Quentin Grimes, Joe Harris
Smith is a freshman sensation, currently shooting 42% on over five three-point attempts per game at 6’10’’. Of all the successful current NBA players who performed well in the Playoff Talent Index in college, none of them are as tall as Jabari. To give context to this level of prospects, the closest scorers on the Playoff Talent Index who were also tall-ish freshmen on good college teams are Lonzo Ball, Cade Cunningham and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, with Jabari above the latter two. All three were playmaking guards who bring the ball up for their respective offenses in the NBA, something Jabari is unlikely to do. His play type contribution breakdown is more similar to Quentin Grimes and Joe Harris, pure shooting two-guards who are also plus defenders. Jabari gets most of his scoring from dribble jumpers and the defensive categories, but is positive in isos and guarded catch and shoot as well.
Needless to say, Jabari is a rare prospect. To simplify the framework for judging quality of prospect for this exercise, I like to ask “how would you scheme against them in a keyed-in playoff setting?” Smith, with his height, quick release, high release point and pure motion, is almost certainly going to be deadly in a catch and shoot and off one or two dribbles. He’s too quick and big to deny on the wing, and appears to be figuring out how to draw in too-close defenders for shouting fouls. Beyond that, he’s adding in KD/Dirk-esque one-legged fades, and spins into fades. You need a very good wing defender, essentially, to slow him down, one who is quick and long enough to guard him off the catch while keeping up with his one-dribble moves. The one solution in guarding Smith is to send aggressive help, as he is just an okay ball handler and passer for his size and mediocre vertical athlete. But he also seems to be progressing on these types of aggressive coverages as the season goes on, and is a young freshman to give him more time to figure it out.
In other words, Jabari Smith is likely to cause a defense to throw substantial resources against him, especially considering how repeatable his scoring can be. That, in combination with his high likelihood of being a positive defender make him an easy top-3 pick in my book.
2. AJ Griffin, Duke
Playoff Talent Index: 1.1
Closest Comps: Luke Kennard, Evan Turner
Griffin sneaks in here, the lowest Playoff Talent score of anyone included in this piece, though 1.) he plays the least of anyone on this list, hurting his per game average, and 2.) his score is likely to increase once he hits the minimum rep requirements for isolations (1.4 points per possession on 7 attempts so far).
Once again, young players on good teams who are 6’5’’+ who score well in this index have a very good hit rate. As the recent increase in playing time sustains, he has a chance to be in the company of Brandon Ingram and Scottie Barnes as other tall freshman with similar scores. But his play type efficiency and usage most correlates with Luke Kennard and Evan Turner. Griffin has been devastating shooting off the dribble, in the 97th %ile of all of college basketball on 24 possessions, while also shooting very well off of catch and shoot.
Kennard and Turner are interesting comparisons as similar combo guards, as Griffin might have the best attributes of both. He is much stronger than Kennard and putting up elite efficiency earlier in his career than Turner. A more polished and athletic version of those guys is a very appealing prospect, as Griffin has already shown high-end flashes of playmaking.
For a player of his size, listed at 6’6’’ and 220 pounds, Griffin’s handle and shooting touch are quite impressive. Griffin already has counter after counter at his disposal, now he just needs to clean up minor decision-making mistakes as he continues to build up to full speed. He’s quick and strong enough to fight through screens, though does get backdoor cut a decent amount. As one of the youngest players likely to be selected in this upcoming draft, Griffin has plenty of time to iron out the details. I expect him to expand upon his pick and roll ball handling usage as well, a way to highlight his off the dribble shooting and passing talent that Duke has not been utilizing so far. The flashes are tantalizing enough to be worth the gamble in the first five picks of the draft, though that may be a modest take if his progress continues.
3. Jordan Hall, St. Joe’s
Playoff Talent Index: 2.1
Closest Comps: Shake Milton, Desmond Bane
There’s a big step down between the two above and here, but Jordan Hall is another player with a chance to be a starter with decent offensive usage if things break the right way. Hall’s archetype has a lower hit rate than Smith and Griffin’s, as he is leading a St. Joe’s team that’s not even in the top 150 in the NCAA, but there have still been good role players to come out of the same context.
The most similar players by play type to Hall within this grouping of tall, young-ish prospects from bad teams are Shake Milton and Desmond Bane, though both scored decently better than him on the index. But when watching St. Joe’s, Hall’s importance to the team is crucial, often facing aggressive help and pulling off absurdly high degree of difficult passes. In that case Hall has been feasting in pick and rolls as the handler when a defense commits, which defenses do twice as often as not with Hall. The sophomore does all of the heavy-lifting himself, as 84% of both his rim and two point jumper attempts and 54% of his threes (the highest of any 2022 prospect mentioned in this piece) have been unassisted, all while maintaining a stunning 38% assist rate, top 10 in the country.
A reason that not many tall young players with high usage make it from bad teams into the NBA is likely that this type of player is generally recruited or transferred to the top 50 school programs, for which we note Hall had the opportunity to transfer to Texas A&M this year. Though he is just an okay athlete, almost certainly below average in the NBA, Hall is listed at 6’8’’ and is figuring out how to use it to create space in the absence of burst. Where he’s special is in his court mapping, both very creative in running through his options as a passer and in taking his defender by surprise with off the dribble shooting.
Continuing to add physical strength will only make his playmaking much easier, and, while Hall is unlikely to be able to keep up with NBA guards, he should be able to hold his own on the wing on defense. Not many players per class have a chance to handle big plays on offense down the stretch for a playoff team, and it’s at least an outside possibility for Hall. There is some downside risk as a mediocre athlete, but he has a good chance to get some rotation reps at some point in his career. Tall players who can run pick and roll are typically valuable by that alone, and if his shooting improves he could be a valuable piece for a tough out in a future playoffs.
4. Harrison Ingram, Stanford
Playoff Talent Index: 1.1
Closest Comps: Iman Shumpert, Scottie Barnes
Ingram falls in the same group as Hall, a 6’8’’ freshman for a struggling Stanford team. Ingram is similarly adept in the pick and roll as a ball handler when the defense commits, but is not the same off the dribble shooter, nor the same threat in isolation. His impressive strength for a freshman and high processing make him more of a defensive prospect, where he has been particularly impactful guarding isos and pick and rolls. While Stanford’s poor play as a whole is concerning for Ingram’s ability to drive an offense, I’m inclined to give him somewhat of a pass considering the team’s stilted overall offensive scheme. Iman Shumpert and Scottie Barnes are his closest comps for this exercise, though both were part of higher functioning teams. Terrence Ross and Alec Burks are the closest to his score for young, tall prospects from bad college teams, both of which have carved out decent sized roles in the NBA.
The reason I’m including Ingram this high on the list is he is high enough feel of a player to find a role on a team through a variety of routes, and good enough to meet a minimum threshold for creation reps as a player already on the floor. He may not be the primary option on offense or a versatile catch and shooter, but he will stay on the court with his passing, rebounding and defense long enough to find a niche. He lacks the burst needed to get easy shots, but has a knack for being in the right spot and when he is knows how to use his physicality to get to the rim. Finishing has been another issue – Ingram has only made 52% of his looks at the rim – but the spacing on the team is poor, and he has still managed a strong 0.42 free throw attempt rate, best of any prospect highlighted in this piece.
There is some faith-based projecting involved with high feel players who know how to weaponize unique physical traits, as the route to success is tougher to picture step-by-step. But that doesn’t make it impossible, as we’ve seen players beat the odds repeatedly, as imagination is a key part of the scouting process. While the odds of Ingram being the primary or secondary engine of an NBA offense is unlikely, his high feel and skill across play types should earn him playing time, and I trust him to figure out how to add value on a high functioning offense. He’s the rare type others can constantly leverage for their own offense who still has routes to get his own, so in my mind is worth a consideration in the lottery.
Potential Bench Playoff Talents with Outside Chance of Starting:
1. Julian Champagnie, St. John’s
Playoff Talent Index: 1.2
Closest Comps: Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, Terrence Ross
Champagnie joins Hall and Ingram as tall, young (he won’t turn 21 until just before the draft) players on bad (relatively) basketball teams. The odds are against all three of them becoming NBA-relevant players, as only one of every four from our NBA success list come from players on teams not in KenPom’s top 50. There may be some self-selection bias here, as a player on a bad team is more likely to stay until they’re better or transfer. But the odds aren’t ideal, especially as Champagnie’s 1.2 grade is the second lowest of anyone I focus on in this piece. Regardless, Champagnie is an elite sharpshooter at 6’8’’, and his tape in particular makes me think his impact could translate.
Champagnie has been diversifying away from a purely a catch and shoot player, as 22% of his possessions on offense have been out of spot up compared to 29% as a sophomore and 32% as a freshman, but his self-created attempts are hardly existent, especially compared to the vast majority on this list. But much like his older brother Justin on the Raptors, Champagnie is an excellent rebounder with a good grasp of positioning in general, and is big enough to keep himself on the floor guarding slower wings. He uses all of his size to compensate for his mediocre athleticism, with a strong one-third of his makes at the rim and 14 dunks on the season, more than anyone else featured in this piece.
While his shooting percentages point more towards a very good shooter rather than a great one, I firmly believe in his mechanics as repeatable both off of movement and from deep behind the line. Champagnie has a high and ultra-quick release, with textbook footwork either off a route or on a one-dribble pull-up. These are often with a defender guarding him tightly, as he is not the best athlete or super quick with the ball, but this also shows how little one can do to stop him from getting his shot off.
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope and Terrence Ross are Champagnie’s closest statistical comps, both faster and more explosive but shorter than Julian. It’s an uphill route for Champagnie to get consistent minutes with middling athleticism and not much to speak of as far as self-creation, but as a fundamentally-sound shooter at 6’8’’ with a great feel for the game, he’s worth a first-round bet or close to it.
2. Tristen Newton, East Carolina
Playoff Talent Index: 2.2
Closest Comps: Spencer Dinwiddie
Newton is another one in the young, tall (6’5’’), bad team column, but of a different type entirely than Hall, Ingram or Champagnie before him. Newton drives the East Carolina offense with a 33% assist rate, 31st in the country, while shooting 68% at the rim (69% unassisted), 41% on other twos (93% unassisted), 39% from three (30% unassisted) and 88% from the line (0.41 free throw attempt rate). That is a staggering workload, one that earns him his comp to Spencer Dinwiddie. While Dinwiddie’s Colorado team snuck into the top 50, Newton makes it up by posting the higher Playoff Talent Index.
Newton is a physical, smooth player with a handle good enough to probe throughout the court. His crossover into pullup is as close to a signature move as anyone has on this list, and he understands how to weaponize it to set up his teammates. He’s not the out of the box playmaker Jordan Hall is, but he’s a very effective passer who runs a good pick and roll.
The one area of his game he needs to improve is his finishing, even though he has posted stellar efficiency there. With his physical frame and handle, he should be able to muscle his way to easy layups more often, but too often bails out along the way, and only takes one of five shots at the rim despite his advantages against often subpar talent.
He’s good on the defensive side as well, using his frame and quickness to be a positive defender, fighting his way through screens in a way that should translate. There are not many effective defenders who are great at difficult shots, good passers and with a capable enough handle to get where he wants, and Newton is one of them. I worry more about under-selling than over-selling Newton here, in spite of his school being not even in the top 150: this and last year have been the Pirates’ best two teams since 2013.
3. TyTy Washington, Kentucky
Playoff Talent Index: 3.9
Closest Comps: Malachi Flynn, Jared Butler
TyTy Washington brings us a new classification for those who rate best in the Playoff Talent Index: shorter prospects who are young and play for elite teams. TyTy rates the best of anyone mentioned on this list so far on the Playoff Talent Index, and third overall compared to those currently relevant in the NBA. Washington is best at all the most difficult shots: he’s 99th %ile in iso, 91st %ile on runners, 93rd %ile on guarded catch and shoot, 95th %ile on pick and rolls when the defense commits, and 78th %ile shooting off the dribble. That’s a difficult player to stop, especially one putting up these numbers as a freshman for a major program.
Washington’s negatives are not even that glaring, but more have to do with lowering his ceiling than impacting his floor as a likely effective NBA player. He’s very old for a freshman, in between sophomore Jordan Hall and junior Julian Champagnie in age as recently turned 20. While his finishing numbers are good, shooting 67% on nearly 80% unassisted attempts, he lacks vertical athleticism and has uninspiring finishing craft at the rim. This relates to how little he draws fouls as well, as his 0.15 free throw attempt rate is worst among anyone highlighted in this piece.
But shooting touch and savvy passing win out, the latter of which was highlighted in a recent UK record-setting 17 assist performance following an injury to typical point guard Sahvir Wheeler (TyTy usually functions as more of a shooting guard). Beyond this, Washington is a very physical 6’3’’ in spite of his lack of vertical threat, getting mixed up constantly in scraps for rebounds and physical fighting through screens. As I write this I feel I’m potentially underestimating Washington, who has all the makings of an eventual starting point guard, the one issue being the competition at his position is always tough. But TyTy’s ability to be effective at what’s needed for either guard spot gives him additional routes to success.
4. Dae Dae Grant, Miami (OH)
Playoff Talent Index: 1.9
Closest Comps: Reggie Jackson, Bones Hyland
Dae Dae Grant is the first player in this piece to only meet one of the three thresholds, being only 6’3’’, playing for a team not even in the top 150 but still only 20 years old as a junior. Grant creates a ton of looks for himself as a shifty on-or-off ball guard – when Miami of Ohio needs someone to make something happen, Grant does it. He shoots 69% at the rim, 85% of which were unassisted; 41% on two point jumpers, 93% unassisted and 34% from three, 40% unassisted. All of those unassisted rates are within the top 3 of anyone mentioned in this piece for each shot distance, and he does it while maintaining a very good 25% assist rate with only a 9% turnover rate, and gets to the foul line a good amount.
Among players who, like Grant, only meet one of my three thresholds, Dae Dae plays the most like Reggie Jackson and Bones Hyland from a statistical standpoint, two other shifty below the rim bucket-getters who excel at hitting tough shots. Grant gets the most contribution from isos to his Playoff Talent Index of anyone mentioned in this piece so far, while also being devastating on guarded catch and shoot threes to the tune of 1.3 points per possession (and 1.4 ppp the season before). That’s a deadly combination which makes him my favorite bail-out player on a short shot-clock from this list.
His okay size and athleticism, though both functional enough, limit his upside and give him a low floor should those shooting percentages not hold. But it’s very easy to see Grant providing value to an offense quickly into his NBA career with his ultra-valuable skillset. One needs only look at his comp Reggie Jackson’s essential role for the Los Angeles Clippers in the 2021 playoffs, where players that hit tough shots are always needed, even if they have shortcoming elsewhere. While Grant’s Synergy scores for defense are low, I’m taking that with a grain of salt as he appears a tough defender for his size, constantly fighting through screens and getting involved in help. While he’s unlikely to be a guard stopper, he should have no issue executing a scheme.
Dae Dae has a great feel for the game, as shown in his supreme assist to turnover ratio, so I have little concern in his ability to hold down a fifth starter position or high usage bench player should his athleticism indeed prove good enough and playmaking resemble his college sample.
Outside Chance of Bench Scoring Usage in Playoff Situations:
1. Isiaih Mosley, Missouri State (Playoff Talent Index: 4.6)
Mosley nearly breaks the scale for the Playoff Talent Index. A recent addition to the “three-yes” classification of tall-ish, young-ish players on good teams, his Missouri State squad moved from the 70th to 49th best team in the country behind a 40-point effort from Mosley to defeat top-30 team Loyola Chicago. His 4.6 rating on the Playoff Talent Index is the absolute highest in the NCAA right now and would be the highest of anyone on my list of NBA successes.
Mosley has been a monster for every type of difficult shotmaking. Among all the players highlighted in this piece, Mosley is first for isos and runners and third for dribble jumpers and on guarded catch and shoot, making his closest statistical comp Trae Young. His statistical profile is most similar to He leads the group in FT% at 90% (87% on 242 attempts over his college career) as well as 3P% at 45% (42% on 264 attempts in his college career). Over half of his three-point makes have been self-created, a share increasing every season. Beyond that, Mosley is 6’5’’ and a decent athlete.
The only reason he’s not higher is he lacks some polish on the defensive end (his PNR ballhandler defensive numbers also mirror those of Trae Young, in addition to another turnstile in Seth Curry) and has the luxury of taking entire possessions to hunt a good shot, easier to do with the longer college shotclock. His assist rate is about equal to his turnover rate, not ideal for someone who puts a lot of pressure on a defense, and lacks vertical athleticism, with only one dunk this season despite his height. But I would love to have Mosley as a scoring option off the bench as a scoring specialist, and wouldn’t be surprised to see him hit big shots in a future playoff series.
2. Jahvon Quinerly, Alabama (Playoff Talent Index: 2.2)
Quinerly has become an unexpected favorite of mine to watch over this process. He’s my favorite passer of the bunch, using his incredible first step to open up the floor. He scores well on this index as an older and shorter player compared to the other prospects, having the highest usage for Alabama’s top 10 offense. Quinerly also has the distinction of being near the top of the Playoff Talent Index for the second year in a row, finishing 14th in all of the NCAA last year, with 2020 first round picks Davion Mitchell and Tre Mann just around him.
Quinerly, listed at 6’1’’ and certainly no taller, runs a massive 16 pick and rolls per game, 10 of which receive aggressive defensive coverage. He punishes those with 0.985 points per possession, 78th %ile in efficiency, which, when combined with the volume, gives him one of the largest Playoff Talent Index contributions from the play type. His shot is volatile, only in the 16th %ile on guarded catch and shoot this season after being 99th %ile in 2020-21. His form looks good to me, with volatile percentages not uncommon for difficult shotmakers, and his ability to find overall great efficiency in spite of that is also telling.
Jahvon is easily the best at getting to the rim of this group, which make up 43% of his attempts and a ridiculous 95% unassisted while still shooting a very good 60%. That’s the type of outlier stat which will hold up against any competition level, and the perfect pairing with his ability to hit a roller and drive and kick. If he were bigger he would be an easy potential starter, but I think he still has a good chance to be a league-average defender in spite of his stature. The competition is fierce at point guard, but Quinerly deserves a spot in a rotation for a needy team, in my mind, and could eventually hold down a decent-sized role on a very good one.
3. Trevor Keels, Duke (1.6)
Keels follows in TyTy Washington’s footsteps under the “short but young and on good teams” column. He’s bigger than TyTy at a listed 6’4’’ and 222 pounds, and much younger than the fellow freshman as 18 through this year’s draft day. He lacks the same shooting craft as Washington, and is less agile with his bulky frame, but Keels is a very good pick and roll operator for his age and has found ways to weaponize his strength. He has an even higher pick and roll contribution than Quinerly despite his lower usage, in the 98th %ile for efficiency on six heavily covered PNRs per game, able to hold off flimsier defenders to give plays time to develop.
Keels’ shot has disappointed this season compared to the lofty expectations for the top-25 recruit, in the 36th %ile for both dribble jumpers and guarded catch and shoot. As I watch it seems he’s limited by the slowness and low release point of his form, a little concerning for a potential draftee who stands at 6’4’’. But he compensates with great acceleration for his size and lots of potential as a rim finisher through strength. That has also been mostly theoretical, shooting only 55% at the rim so far which I would attribute partially to a general lack of agility to finish in traffic with finesse. His age will play in his favor in figuring out what works for him off the dribble, as he’ll have plenty of opportunities to do so as his combination of strength and shooting is worth it for the upside.
The other concern holding him back, as I believe many in the draft community would have him as a more likely starter, is his defensive upside. While he’s a generally smart defender and his strength is an asset, he’s likely too bulky to run around screens, while also not having a long enough wingspan to contest the taller wings. He should be an NBA level defender, but with limited versatility. This, in combination with his limitations on ball, make him look more like a late first-rounder than lottery pick to me.
4. Taz Sherman, West Virginia (2.6)
Sherman is another slippery guard who grades out excellently on the Playoff Talent Index. He feasts on defenses by shooting off the dribble for the fourth best efficiency of the 75 current college players with 80+ attempts on dribble jumpers. As one of the older players on this list, being a junior college transfer two seasons ago, Sherman does much of what you want in a 22-year old prospect. He appears to meet the NBA’s minimum athletic thresholds as he’s figured out how to bait fouls with a 0.36 free throw rate and plays hard on defense with a respectable 2.7% steal rate and 0.8% block rate.
His passing is sub-standard for an NBA prospect guard but has improved from a 12% assist rate last season to 19% this season with only a small increase in turnover rate. His negative pick and roll grade may point to some playmaking limitations, but West Virginia’s other offensive weapons to punish aggressive defensive coverages are uninspiring, limiting both spacing and the efficiency off his kick-outs.
Sherman is around the middle of the pack among those in this article with regards to self-creation share, still placing him among the elite in the country. His iso score is positive, helping him grade out closest to CJ McCollum among players who only met one of my three thresholds, and having a similar ability to create a ton of space off of stepbacks and crossovers. All-kinds-of-shooters who can bail you out of any situation are always useful, even if Sherman’s passing mediocrity makes a starting role unlikely. His swing skill is his catch and shoot ability, grading as just average the past two seasons.
5. Isaiah Wong, Miami (FL) (3.1)
The junior Wong’s score ranks third best of anyone in this piece, rising throughout the season to now equal Jalen Brunson’s 2017-18 season at Villanova. More than anyone in this piece, I think Wong could work his way into a playoff rotation through his defensive upside more than offensive. His shooting has been mediocre this season, in line with his prior two college seasons. However, watching Miami you can tell how essential is to the team on both sides of the court, as his offensive box plus-minus is unique in increasing against top teams, putting up big games in wins against Wake Forest and UNC and a one-point loss to Florida State.
Wong is a great athlete, with more dunks than the taller Keels, Sherman, Mosley and Hall, and an impressive >1% block rate for a 6’3’’ guard. He’s able to get his shot off easily despite a slow and somewhat awkward release, with self-creation rates among the best in college basketball. While not much of a passer for a starting guard, neither does Wong turn the ball over often. His only negative categories are catch and shoot and as a pick and roll ball handler, the latter of which can be ignored as his defense more than passes the eye test. His stellar score is largely due to great off the dribble shooting, scoring 1.02 points per possessions compared to the NCAA median of 0.78. I would hesitate to buy his strong pick and roll scores on offense, as Miami has plenty of decent-to-good shooters, but it is a at least somewhat of a testament to his scoring gravity.
Isaiah Wong lacks the polish of someone you can trust to throw into a high usage role early in his NBA career, but should be able to find plenty of ways to contribute enough as a decently-skilled good athlete. A good shooting program could turn him into a player worth real playoff minutes.
6. Johnny Juzang, UCLA (1.7)
Juzang is a late entry into my process, climbing up the ranks after four recent consecutive 20+ point games. He is up to 38% from three on ten attempts per 100 possessions, up from 35% the season before and 32% as a freshman. Building on his resume as an elite shooter, he has shot 83% from the line or better each season, and 45%+ from the midrange the past two seasons, majority self-created. His strong Playoff Talent score is due to his dribble jumpers, mostly, devastating in the midrange in particular.
The issue is he isn’t great at anything else, most resembling Julian Champagnie among others in this piece and at two inches shorter. But Juzang has been expanding his range by attacking the rim more (from not at all previously), and does have some flashes of high-end passing, if otherwise mostly just functional. I also think his defense is underrated, good enough in my mind to keep up with the less-offensively inclined wings in the NBA.
We also have the benefit of seeing how dangerous Juzang’s midrange shooting streaks could be in a playoff setting, the cornerstone of UCLA’s run to the Final Four. He has a very quick and high release and is good enough off of one or two dribbles to challenge close-outs. His sound technique at 6’6’’ should be enough to launch from deep NBA range and Juzang has no hesitancy to do so. He may not be the most well-rounded player, but what Juzang does well is rare.
First Ones Out:
There were many other players who graded well in the Playoff Talent Index who I decided to exclude for various reasons. As I update this piece at the conclusion of the college season, I would expect any new additions to come from below.
The most common tough exclusion, as small guards make up the heavy majority of this list, is whether a guard can meet a minimum defensive standard. Abmas’ score is only 1.4 this season, however, not enough to justify including, but did place second in all of the NCAA last season. Abmas has added physicality, but the margin for him to be a significant NBA role player remains tough as he measured 6’0’’ in shoes, the shortest at the 2021 NBA draft combine.
Auburn’s Wendell Green is in a similar boat, though crushing the Playoff Talent Index off the bench for his high-powered offense with a blistering 3.8 score. However, in watching the tape I come away pessimistic on his ability to defend at an NBA level, and though he’s a very tough shotmaker can miss some very obvious passes. Again, he may find his way onto an NBA rotation, but is tough to argue for drafting at 5’11’’ with some obvious shortcomings.
Caleb Love is a young, bigger guard than Abmas and Green, listed at 6’4’’ and scores pretty well in the Playoff Talent Index as a sophomore at UNC. However, he similarly disappoints on the defensive tape, validated by one of the worst pick and role defensive numbers on Synergy, and has shown little consistency over the course of his season and a half of college.
There are other players who are more wing-esque who need either more on-ball reps or more consistency for me to take them seriously as playoff usage type prospects. Alondes Williams has gotten much draft hype recently, surging in his third season as a transfer to a Wake Forest team largely and unexpectedly in the top 25 due to him. However, he grades out as a mere 0.8 on the Playoff Talent Index, good in iso situations but an average shooter off the catch and dribble alike. He’s also surprisingly only seeing 0.8 points per possession on pick and rolls when the defense commits, likely weighed down by his 20% turnover rate. Williams is capable of passes very few others are, but partially because he tries so many. At age 22 and seeing large usage for the first time of his career, there is still time for Williams to clean up his decision-making, so I’ll be keen to check up on him throughout the season. And while he may not be a high usage offensive player, Alondes’ physicality and contributions on the glass, off of cuts and in transition would give him many routes to playing time and value even if not a high usage scorer.
Ochai Agbaji and Bennedict Mathurin both have pretty good Playoff Talent scores as excellent in contested catch and shoot, but I believe fall short as passers and ballhandlers, not creating a ton for themselves on the perimeter nor setting up teammates very frequently. They are both good defenders and athletes who will be worth first round picks for other reasons. You can include Toledo’s Ryan Rollins in this, though is less of a catch and shoot threat and more of a bruiser at attacking the rim.
Finally, David Roddy was a tempting add as a prospect for potential offensive usage, a physical shooter and clever passer. Roddy is especially adept at the rim, which makes up for half of his makes, but can be a hesitant shooter who operates more out of the post than perimeter. I think Roddy could have a lot of value for an NBA team, but is unlikely to be someone you’d want to have high usage on an NBA offense.