Drafting is hard. A big part of the problem is that the data that is accessible comes in small sample sizes, which makes it hard to make any confident predictions about players. That said, even with the small sample sizes, there are trends you can find in the draft that can help to demystify the selection process. Wishing to evaluate these trends further, I have investigated which prospect statistical archetypes tend to succeed in the NBA. As a result of my research, I have found 14 particular groups that have good outcomes and have ranked these groups by their outcomes1 over the last nine drafts. I could go further back in terms of draft data, however, the three-point revolution really changed which players pan out in the NBA. For example, if Jahlil Okafor or Nerlens Noel were ten years older, they likely would have had much better careers. For this purpose, I have decided to concentrate on drafts where teams started rebuilding in light of the developments of NBA basketball playstyle. In this article, I will go over each of these statistical archetypes and highlight players in this upcoming 2024 draft that project well. In so doing, I hope to shed some light into what we can reasonably expect out of this draft. As well, I hope to provide tools for spotting talent in drafts to come. Now, to the list:
14. Old Dawgs (Old with good DBPMs)
Old Dawgs are prospects over the age of 21 who have a defensive box plus minus exceeding 6.0. Well-known players to come from this group are Willie Cauley-Stein, Matisse Thybulle, Brandon Clarke, and Delon Wright. You may not see much here, but 43% of players of this category have gone on to become NBA starters. Granted, the sample size2 is small, as only eight players have met the requirements to be part of this respectable group. Also, you are probably not getting much more than a starter, as nobody in this group has gone on to become an all-star, or even a fringe all-star. That said, this is a fairly safe group to be in, with only one ever having full-on busted, Sindarius Thornwell (though, there are other players who may be on the cusp of busting, such as Neemias Queta). Willie Cauley-Stein arguably busted too, though I hesitate to say so, considering that he had a respectable seven-year NBA career.
The only prospect of which I am aware that fits into this group in this year’s class is Jamal Shead, who has been an absolute menace on defense for Houston. That said, Shead is undersized at 6’1.5”. As such, I’m not sure the defense will translate too well into the NBA, so I would bet he is going to be part of the 57% of players in this group that does not go on to be a starter. Though, I do think he could carve himself a role as a back-up.
13. OOOs (Old with Outstanding OBPMs)
Ooos are prospects over the age of 21 who boast an offensive box plus minus over 9.0. This group is larger than the Old Dawgs, so we have slightly more reliable data. This group generally cranks out good players, including Derrick White, Cameron Johnson, Buddy Hield, Brandon Clarke, Keegan Murray, and Tari Eason to name a few. While nobody in this group has an official all-star appearance, Derrick White is certainly on the cusp of that, and I don’t think it is impossible to see Keegan Murray and Tari Eason getting there one day. In the past nine years, 57% of these players go on to be starter quality players, and 29% generally survive as role players. Not everyone makes it. You get some occasional flops, like Frank Kaminsky, Denzel Valentine, Luka Garza (though it may be too early to call it on him), and Sindarius Thornwell (again). However, this is generally a safe group to bet on, even if being part of this group doesn’t necessarily indicate much upside.
In this year’s draft, Zach Edey stands alone among prospects within this category. Given Zach Edey’s ridiculous efficiency at Purdue, this should come as no shock. A lot of people are low on Edey because of his lack of mobility; however, I think these fears are overblown. Edey may never become a star, but being among the ooos indicates that there is a good chance he at least becomes a high-quality role player.
12. Thieves (Prospects who steal the ball a lot)
Thieves are draft prospects who grab equal to or over 2.3 steals a game per 36 minutes. This group differs from other groups that I will address today as it is primarily a reference to how good a player’s defensive game will be, rather than a reference to how good a player’s overall game will be. Famed defensive specialists in this group include Jalen Suggs, Herb Jones, Matisse Thybulle, the Thompson twins, Kris Dunn, De’Anthony Melton, Tari Eason, and Gary Payton II. Not bad company at all. You also get some weird members of this group, including Zion Williamson and Tyrese Haliburton, who, while their defensive games have not translated into the NBA, they have become great players on the other end. Within in this group, two, in my mind, have gone on to become players who could contend for Defensive Player of the Year: Jalen Suggs and Herb Jones. That said, about 63% have gone on to become respectable defensive specialists, and only about 11% have not panned out defensively (including the weird members of this group that I alluded to earlier). That all said, if you focus on players in this category who were projected to go in the lottery, almost half of those players go on to become All-NBA Defensive Team caliber players. So, if your team is looking for more defense in the lottery, these are pretty good bets to take.
In this current class, we can identify three players as “thieves”: Reed Sheppard, averaging 3.1 steals per 36, Ron Holland, averaging 2.6 steals per 36 and Juan Nunez, averaging 2.5 steals per 36. That is not to say that these players are bona-fide defensive juggernauts. Reed Sheppard’s lack of size should make his defense less impressive in the NBA. That said, the 3.1 steals are hard to ignore, especially when you look at them along with his almost one block a game. Thus, I would not be shocked if Sheppard is among the 50% of lottery-projected thieves that goes on to become an all-defense caliber player. Holland and Nunez, on the other hand, have below average defensive ratings. That said, defensive rating is heavily dependent on team performance, and it is fair to say that in Holland’s case, he has not had the best defenders around him with the G-League Ignite. So, while it may be difficult to evaluate Holland and Nunez as elite defenders given their bad defensive ratings, I’m fairly optimistic that they can pan out on that end.
11. Old Buckets (Old and can score at will)
Old Buckets are prospects over the age of 21 who score at least 23 points per 36 minutes. Notable members of this group include Buddy Hield, Rui Hachimura, Keegan Murray, and Tari Eason (I really hope Eason gets more touches in Houston). Of prospects in this group, 36% go on to be starters—but there is a catch. There are 64% of members of this group that bust. Let me know if you recognize the following names: Kay Felder, Alec Peters, Grant Riller, Chandler Hutchison, etc. There’s a good chance you haven’t even heard of one of these guys. The point is, and I addressed this on my earlier big board article, scoring alone doesn’t make you a good prospect. However, there is a reason I highlighted this group. Among lottery projected Old Buckets, 100% have gone on to become starters. Now, there is a catch to that as well. There are only three players in the last nine years who fit that mold, so that number is likely to go down at some point.
If I were to bet when, it may be this year. Players who are lottery-projected Old Buckets in this draft are Dalton Knecht and Zach Edey. While I am somewhat high on Edey, I’m not sure he will be the same bucket-getter in the NBA, given the differing styles of play between the NBA and college. Edey dominated by posting up, an arguably dead tactic in the modern NBA. I still think he will be a good NBA player, but it may not be because he can score at a high rate like he did in college. Dalton Knecht, on the other hand, I am even more skeptical on. The reason I don’t like Dalton Knecht as much is because his free throw percentage is pretty meh. When you look at the other Old Buckets, almost all of them had free throws over 80% entering into the league. That said, two of the more successful versions of Old Buckets, Keegan Murray and Rui Hachimura, were not great free throw shooters either. That said, especially in the case of Keegan Murray, they had skills beyond just their scoring, which I am not sure Knecht has. If I had to make a best-case comparison for Knecht, it might actually be a shorter Rui Hachimura, as they had surprisingly similar statistical profiles coming out of college, though Hachimura was also two years younger and had better advanced metrics.
Also of note in this group are Terrence Shannon and Antonio Reeves, who certainly merit attention, though neither a lottery projected, so they have greater chance to bust than to hit. I personally am high on Shannon, but I should also be cautious, because players of his type are the definition of hit-or-miss.
10. YE Guards (Young, efficient guards, who are not necessarily good free throw shooters)
I’m sorry, but I just couldn’t come up with a good name for this sub-group. I thought of inserting some Kanye West related joke here, but I did not know how to tie Kanye West to young, efficient NBA guard prospects. YE Guards are the incomplete version of YES guards, which I will discuss in more detail later. What makes them incomplete is less ability to shoot free throws, which often indicates that they may not be the best shooters. That is not to say that they are atrocious in this regard, but it means that they do not meet the 80% free throw percentage threshold to become a YES Guard—and yes, that does make a difference.
Now that the difference between YES Guards and YE Guards has been addressed, it is time to address the elements that they share that set them apart from other guard prospects: Youth and efficiency. What I consider young remains consistent. Anyone under 21 years of age is a young prospect. The efficiency element is slightly more complex, but not too bad. When I say a prospect is “efficient”, what I am saying is that they are above average efficiency in more parts of the game than they are below-average efficiency in. How do I determine this? It is very simple. I go on to Tankathon and look at a prospect's draft profile. If the prospect has more stats highlighted in green than in red, I consider them an efficient prospect. This may not seem like the most scientific approach to evaluating a player, but it works surprisingly well, as I will demonstrate once I give you the outcomes for players in the YE and YES Guard categories.
While YE guards are not as projectable as their YES Guard counterparts, they still project pretty well. Overall, 27% of YE guards go on to become stars. However, what makes YE guards impressive is that 80% go on to become starters, while only 13% of them become back-ups or bust. That’s a pretty good hit rate. However, when you look at YE guards that are projected to go in the lottery by the consensus, then the numbers go up, with 36% becoming all stars and 100% becoming starters. As of the last nine years, not one player in this category that was projected in the lottery has become a bench player, let alone a bust. In other words, YE guards are high floor prospects, even if the ceilings are not as guaranteed as later categories you will see.
Successful YE guards include Ben Simmons (People forget how good he was early on), Jamal Murray, DeAaron Fox, Devin Vassell, Jalen Suggs, and the Thompson brothers. There are some misses, like Zhaire Smith and Dalen Terry, but they are small in number.
In this class, there is one YE guard and he is Johnny Furphy. As of right now, Furphy is not projected to go lottery, so he’s not as likely to hit as some other YE prospects, however, his stock could rocket up as we approach the draft if other people start seeing what I am seeing in Furphy. I wouldn’t say Furphy is going to be a star, but I certainly think that, given the minutes and the touches, he could become a perfectly playable starter. That’s better than you can say for a lot of prospects in this draft, and probably enough to make him worth a lottery pick.
9. Young Drop-Bigs (Young and can block shots)
Young Drop-Bigs are prospects under 21 years of age that block over 3.0 shots per 36 minutes. Well-known prospects of this ilk include Evan Mobley, Chet Holmgren, Jalen Duren, Karl-Anthony Towns, Myles Turner, and Jaren Jackson Jr. Now we are seeing some bigger names! Within this group, 15% have gone on to become All-NBA caliber players, with a quarter of them becoming stars. On top of this, half of these prospects become starters. However, a quarter of them do bust, so while there is clearly upside associated with this group, it is not as safe as some of the other groups we have evaluated. However, when the players are lottery-projected, 30% go on to become All-NBA level, 50% go on to become star level, and zero have busted. The floor is also high, with 90% in this sub-category becoming starters.
In this year’s class, Donovan Clingan and Alexandre Sarr fit the bill. As such, I have pretty high confidence it these players’ floor. The question is more so if they can among the 50% of whom become stars. I have some skepticism on both, as I am not convinced by either of their shooting ability. As such, it is hard to believe they will generate enough offense to get all-star nods. That said, they could certainly have the same impact as all-stars given what they could potentially bring on defense. This is especially the case with Clingan, who has really impressive defensive stats. I am a little more cautious on Sarr because he has a poor defensive rating and he just barely eked himself onto this list. However, these are yellow flags at worst, so I am still quite optimistic on Sarr.
8. Half-icorns (Young, stretch Bigs)
You may look at the name “Half-icorn” and wonder what the heck I am talking about. Simply put, Half-icorns are incomplete versions of Unicorns, which, as you will find out, are young, efficient bigs who can shoot. Essentially, Half-icorns are young bigs who can shoot that were not efficient prior to entering the league. Efficiency, is, once again determined by the Tankathon criteria I alluded to earlier in this article. So, who qualifies as a Half-icorn? Half-icorns are bigs (power forwards and centers) under the age of 21 who shoot free throws at a success rate of at least 75%. That said, unlike their Unicorn counterparts, they have more red categories than green categories in Tankathon.
This is a small group. There is a reason we call them Half-icorns after all—they are rare. That said, there has been a generally high success rate among players in this group. Many people think of Kristaps Porzingis as a Unicorn, but in reality, he was a Half-icorn coming into the draft, as he was not the most efficient prospect coming into the NBA. That said, he has panned out well, and has upgraded his status to full Unicorn in the league. In addition to Porzingis, you’ll find Myles Turner and Michael Porter Jr. in this group, which is not bad at all. That said, this group does not give you any guarantees, as you will also find Diamond Stone. Not necessary a diamond in the rough. I would take the numbers in this group with a good dose of salt, because the sample size is small, however, the small signs that there are are promising.
Roughly a third of Half-icorns turn out to be all-star capable players, while 50% go on to be starters. However, every Half-icorn that has been projected in the lottery has panned out, either becoming a star, or a high-level starter. As such, while one should be cautious when considering a Half-icorn, so far, they have been pretty good.
This year has one Half-icorn: Ulrich Chomche. Chomche hits exactly 75% of his free throws, qualifying him for this exclusive group. In fact, Chomche almost qualifies as a full-on Unicorn, as he actually is perfectly even in terms of “Tankathon efficiency” as I will call it (His green traits match is red traits in number). However, I am not going to give him full-Unicorn status, because the sample size of his statistics is ridiculously small, and he plays in a league with questionable competition in NBA Academy Africa. It is hard to say if Chomche would be able to maintain his impressive stats, as one missed free throw could reduce his free throw percentage a good amount. As such, Chomche is a high-risk, high-reward kind of player. He’s maybe a player you take after you think all star-power is gone in the draft.
7. Young Buckets (Young and scores at will)
Young Buckets are prospects under 21 who score at least 23 points per 36 minutes. This is where you start getting some legit star power in the draft. Among those who have been part of this group are Trae Young, Zion Williamson, Ja Morant, Alperen Sengun, and Victor Wembanyama. That's quite the group. The best part is there isn't too many major misses, though you can count Jawun Evans, Vernon Carey Jr., and James Wiseman in this group. That said, James Wiseman’s stats were based on a very small sample size, so you could easily dismiss that. To put it into numbers, Young Buckets become stars about a third of the time. However, 73% go on to become starters, with only 13% of them busting. In other words, Young Buckets are pretty low risk, high reward players. Things get even better once the players are lottery projected, with 50% of lottery projected Young Buckets becoming All-NBA level players and 90% becoming starters.
In this year’s class, there is only one Young Bucket, and he is lottery projected: Rob Dillingham. Rob Dillingham has made the most of his minutes at Kentucky, scoring at high rates when he on the floor, with him scoring 23.5 points per 36 minutes. This is very encouraging. If trends continue, there is a very good chance that we are not just looking at a star player, but an All-NBA player, which is not too shabby considering a “generationally bad draft class”. At the very worst, he is likely to become a starter, so Dillingham is actually a pretty safe pick in my opinion. The biggest concern with him is his size and his defense, however, Trae Young succeeded while in this group, despite sharing the same weaknesses as Dillingham. I don’t think Dillingham is Trae Young, but despite all the criticism Trae Young receives, if he was going in this draft class, you’d probably take him first overall. As such, Dillingham should be drafted high.
6. Yoos (Young with Outstanding OBPMs)
This is the younger counterpart to Ooos, under 21 players with an OBPM exceeding 9.0. This is a great group, with 40% going on to become All-NBA level and 60% becoming starters. None have full-on busted in the past nine years. That said, this group is small, so it may not be the most trustable group. However, the two times a Yoo was projected in the lottery, they hit big time: Trae Young and Zion Williamson. So, while being cautious of the sample size, Yoos are a pretty good bet to become big names in the league. In fact, I originally had them listed as the number four group in this article, but I determined I couldn’t justify that given the small sample size.
This class, unfortunately, has nobody that fits this bill, though Donovan Clingan comes awfully close. Take notes.
5. BPM Bois (Young with a great BPM)
BPM Bois are prospects under 21 who possess a BPM of at least 11.0. This is a larger group, so the sample size is more encouraging. As well, there is a good amount of success in this group. I would say the BPM Bois introduce us to the more reliable draft archetypes. This group is star-studded, including Karl-Anthony Towns, Donovan Mitchell, Jaren Jackson Jr., Trae Young, Zion Williamson, Tyrese Haliburton, Franz Wagner, Chet Holmgren, and most recently, Brandon Miller. That is not to say that you will get exclusively stars, as you’ll get an occasional Jarrett Culver or Udoka Azubuike. However, this is a pretty dang reliable group.
Around 38% of BPM Bois become stars, 69% (nice) become starters, and 12% bust. That said, lottery-projected BPM Bois have quite good numbers, with 35% becoming All-NBA level players, 59% become all stars, and almost all of them become starters (the only exception being Jarrett Culver). As such, if you encounter a BPM Boi, you should probably take him.
In this draft class, there are actually three BPM Bois: Reed Sheppard, Donovan Clingan, and Kyle Filipowski. What is up for debate is whether Kyle Filipowski constitutes as “lottery projected” like the other BPM Bois of this draft. As of the moment, Filipowski is just outside of the lottery among the consensus. Because of this, I would probably say his projected outcome is less favorable than Sheppard’s or Clingan’s based on this grouping. That said, it is interesting to see him fall into the overall group and has made me a little higher on him. I’m not sure if I see him becoming one of the 38% of BPM Bois who becomes stars, but I think he has a good shot at being a starter on an NBA team at some point.
4. Young Dawgs (Young with good DBPM)
Young Dawgs are prospects under 21 who have a defensive box plus minus of 6.0 or above. They have slightly better outcomes than BPM Bois, with a quarter becoming All-NBA players, 42% becoming stars, 83% becoming starters, and 8% busting. This is a good start, and we haven’t even gotten to the lottery-projected qualifiers yet. Young Dawgs projected to go lottery have a 38% chance of being All-NBA, 63% chance of being stars, and have never been less than starting caliber players (within the past 10 drafts). This illustrious group includes a lot of the repeat guys in this article: Karl-Anthony Towns, Jaren Jackson Jr., Zion Williamson, Chet Holmgren, Franz Wagner, and Myles Turner. The only player in this group that I can find that busted was Chinanu Onuaku. So, definitely take a Young Dawg if he falls to you and there isn’t someone else in the upcoming groups that falls to you.
This year, there is one Young Dawg, and maybe you have guessed it already: Donovan Clingan, making his third official appearance on the day. What more can I say: Draft this guy! Clingan is the safest pick in this draft. Among those who have made at least three categories that I have mentioned today, all of them have hit, with all of them at least becoming high-quality starters. Because of this, taking Clingan out of the top five would be a missed opportunity, in my opinion. His defense projects to be all-defense tier, so, if you care about defense, or your team needs to level up in this regard, Clingan is a great prospect.
3. YES Forwards (Young, efficient forwards who can shoot)
At this point, we have entered the territory of the YES prospect. This is the best projected outcome prospect type I have found up to this point, regardless of position. All YES prospects have youth (sub-21), efficiency (in terms of Tankathon green vs. Tankathon red stats), and shooting (80%+ free throw, though I have lowered the standard to 75% for bigs). If you stumble upon a YES prospect, he is your best bet, not only in floor, but in ceiling. Without further ado, I present the first of the YES archetypes: The YES forward.
YES forwards are a small, but mighty group. Though the sample size is very small, these are always highly sought-after prospects. All but two have been lottery projected, and there is good reason for that. Over half, at 57%, of YES forwards become all-star caliber players, while 71% become starters, and none have busted in the past nine years. However, when you take out the non-lottery-projected prospects, you get a 100% hit rate: 40% All-NBA, 80% stars, and 100% starters. The shining stars of this group are Jayson Tatum and Luka Doncic, perennial All-NBA first team contenders. The worst it gets is AJ Griffin and Leonard Miller, which, neither were projected lottery, and both are still young, with the verdict still out. I know that AJ Griffin did not have a great sophomore season, but he had a great rookie season and deserves more opportunities than he has been given. I would say the same applies for Leonard Miller, who barely saw an NBA floor in his rookie season. It certainly doesn’t help that he played on a top-five NBA team that is arguably the deepest in the league. So, even at their worst, YES Forwards project upside.
This year, there are no YES Forwards. The closest to reach this group in this draft is probably Johnny Furphy, so long as you consider him a forward. Though he seems to primarily play the two-guard. That said, he will likely see forward reps in the NBA given his size, so you can probably give him consideration. The other prospect that is kind-of, but not really close is Tyler Smith, who needs better free throw percentage and overall efficiency to make the group. This is likely a rough draft in terms of forwards, but who knows? Maybe players like Johnny Furphy, Tyler Smith, or even Ron Holland, can make a bad draft for forwards into a good one.
2. YES Guards (Young, efficient guards who can shoot)
YES Guards, as you may be able to infer, are guards under 21 who have positive Tankathon efficiency and who shoot over 80% from the line. This is a great group to be in. It also draws upon a larger sample size than that of YES Forwards, even if the outcomes on the surface are slightly less exciting. Among YES Guards, 36% become All-NBA level, 50% become stars, but a not-so-great 21% bust. So, this is not necessarily the safest draft archetype, but it may be the highest ceiling one. The numbers get better if the player is lottery-projected of course, with 45%, nearly half, becoming All-NBA, 64% becoming stars, and 82% becoming starters. As well, only one player has ever busted in the lottery-projected sub-group, Killian Hayes. Highlights of this group include Devin Booker, Luka Doncic, Trae Young, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Ja Morant, and Tyrese Haliburton.
This draft class has three players who meet the minimum requirements, though there is one guard who is just barely outside, so I’ll toss him out for consideration too. The three clear YES guards in this draft are Reed Sheppard, Nikola Topic, and Jared McCain. The player who is just barely on the outside looking in is Rob Dillingham, who was just under the 80% free throw threshold and broke even in terms of Tankathon efficiency. Thus, I would count Dillingham as part of this group, though you can give less weight to him. All guards, with exception to McCain, are lottery-projected, which bodes well for them.
Sheppard has now made his third appearance, similar to Donovan Clingan. As such, you can consider him the second-safest bet in this class. The only reason I consider Clingan as safer is because the stats, primarily defensive stats, in which Clingan dominates have a history of translating easier into the NBA (blocks, rebounds, etc.). That said, I would be all in on Sheppard. He is small, but many successful NBA players are small, including many who are among past YES Guards.
Nikola Topic is another good bet. Playing in Europe, Topic has maintained shocking efficiency for an 18-year-old, while also shooting incredibly well from the line. He has issues on defense, and the injuries are concerning, but the upside is real and hard to pass up. I think the upside far outweighs the risk, which I’m not sure is super big anyways.
Jared McCain is another player who may end up being pretty good. I get a little concerned about him because I am not sure he can do much other than shoot. He also is the only guard in this group that is not projected in the lottery, so he is less likely to hit a high ceiling outcome and more likely to bust. As a result, I don’t see him as likely to become a star, but he could easily become a serviceable starter.
Rob Dillingham, while not technically a YES Guard, did make it on as a Young Bucket, so he may elevate himself to at least Topic or McCain’s level given his membership there. Dillingham is small, like Sheppard, and bad at defense, like Topic. However, the offensive upside still remains. So, he should probably be in the top-five.
1. Unicorns/YES Bigs (Young, efficient bigs who can shoot)
Finally, the king of all draft archetypes: The YES Big, or as I prefer to call them, Unicorns. Unicorns are any Big (Center/Power-Forward) who shoots over 75% from the line, with positive Tankathon efficiency, while also being younger than 21. This group is fantastic. As many as 38% of Unicorns become all NBA, with 46% becoming stars, 62% starting, and only two ever busting. When you look at lottery projected Unicorns, you basically have a guaranteed star, with 71% being All-NBA level, 86% being all-star level, and 100% being starters. In this group are Karl-Anthony Towns, Domantas Sabonis, Lauri Markkanen, Jaren Jackson Jr., and Alperen Sengun, and Victor Wembanyama.
As mentioned earlier, Ulrich Chomche just barely falls out of this group due to breaking even at Tankathon efficiency. I have given my reasons for why I don’t buy him actually belonging to this group and instead being a mere Half-icorn. While his stats are great, they are based on only a handful of games. But if he does pan out, he could certainly join the Unicorns in their pantheon of greatness.
Conclusion
There are no guarantees in drafting, but the archetypes I have presented give me hope that draft outcomes are not totally random. In light of the 2024 draft class, I would like to leave you all with one main take-away from this evaluation: This class is not terrible. Everyone likes trashing on this class with no evidence. However, between players like Clingan, Sheppard, Topic, Dillingham, Sarr, Chomche, Edey, Holland, and even Furphy, you have upside. You also have players who could well be on track to be solid NBA players in Jared McCain, Zach Edey, Kyle Filipowski, Terrence Shannon, Juan Nunez, Antonio Reeves, Dalton Knecht, and Jamal Shead—and there is data to back up this conclusion: Among all people who fit within at least one of these archetypes, 13% become All-NBA level, 24% become all-star level, 54% become starters, 18% become role/bench players, and 25% bust. There are 16 players in this class that qualify for at least one of the categories. If we were to take everyone that qualified in this draft class and crunch the numbers, two will become All-NBA, four will become stars, and nine will become starters. In terms of draft history, that’s pretty much par for the course. That’s only including those who were listed today, and there will definitely be a few players outside of this list who will at least slip into the starting five of their respective teams.3 While, I wouldn’t say this class is fantastic, if trends over the past nine years continue, this will be a perfectly respectable class.
My methodology for measuring outcomes is, on the surface, simple, but it may be a bit controversial. I have evaluated every player that falls within a statistical category by All-NBA, Star, Starter, Role Player, and Bust. I generally stick to how you would intuitively assign these groups: Put All-NBA players as All-NBA and put All-Star players as stars. However, I believe doing this is not actually the most accurate way to evaluate talent. To illustrate, D’Angelo Russel has an all-star appearance. Meanwhile, Derrick White and Jamal Murray do not. That said, I would be shocked if there were many people who would rather have D’Angelo Russel over Derrick White or Jamal Murray. So, how do I address such an issue? I, admittedly, tinkered with what otherwise seems like an objective standard which I will later explain is not, in fact, that objective.
When choosing All-NBA players, I chose All-NBA players. Seems obvious. However, I did take the liberties to add a few names to this list, as I think certain players who have not yet received All-NBA honors are almost inevitably going to become All-NBA players, barring injury or other unforeseen issues: Victor Wembanyama, Chet Holmgren, Zion Williamson, and Alperen Sengun. These are all young players who have much of their careers left to play but have already risen to a certain degree of stardom.
When choosing Star players, I pretty much chose anyone who has received an all-star selection, though, as you can probably infer from above, I added and subtracted names from the list. Players I added include Evan Mobley, Tyler Herro, Cade Cunningham, Jamal Murray, Amen Thompson, Franz Wagner, Brandon Miller, Jabari Smith Jr., and Derrick White. Meanwhile, I only subtracted one player from the list of stars, despite him having an all-star appearance. That person is D’Angelo Russel, who I think most people consider, at best, a typical starting player. To me, a star is someone who is, or is likely to be, a top 40ish player in the NBA at some point in time. Maybe I should rebrand the name to be “High-level starter”, but I think that somewhat undersells it, because I would consider a player like Myles Turner to be a high-level starter, even if I wouldn’t necessarily call him a star. As such, I am keeping the designation as it is.
Selecting starters is a bit more nuanced. Almost every NBA player at some point has started a game. As such, I can’t just go off of every player who has ever started a game. Generally speaking, to me, a starter is someone who has probably played at least two seasons, or likely will player at least two seasons, in a consistent starting role. I don’t think there is major controversy among players I put in this group. As I look over this list, I don’t think many people would contend against any of the names I put in this group. However, please comment if you think I misdesignated someone.
Role players are also relatively uncontroversial. In choosing role players, I essentially chose non-starters who have managed to play for a good amount of time in the NBA, usually I require at least five years. That said, that would eliminate half of the years that I evaluated for consideration. Once again, I have to take some liberties in guessing who I think will still be in the NBA in five years. However, I don’t think I have any wild takes here, as I generally stuck to the five-year rule. I would also like to add that I do not reference the role-player category that much in this analysis. As such, I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it.
Busts, finally, are players who fall out of the NBA within five years, while playing a minimal role. I, admittedly, tend to give players who were drafted within the past five years the benefit of the doubt and put them in the role player category. Thus, when you look at the bust category, you are looking at prospects who have legitimately busted. The most controversial bust I may be Killian Hayes, who recently got waived by the Pistons (yikes). While Hayes has spent a good portion of his career playing consistent minutes, even starting, he played for the bottom-feeding Pistons, and the fact that he was not even able to maintain a spot on the Pistons suggests that he may not be cut for the NBA.
Finally, one last note: If I were to go off of All-NBA or All-Star appearances as the measure for what constitutes each group, this would still be a relatively subjective standard. People often forget that these decisions are not numbers-based but are based on the subjective opinions of sports journalists primarily. As such, me throwing my own subjectivity into these designations is not too off this standard anyways. Obviously, All-NBA and All-Star appearances represent an aggregate of opinions, thus they may be more legitimate than my individual opinion, but that still doesn’t address the issue of younger players who have not yet gotten their accolades, or players who are one-season wonders. Thus, I know my methodology is imperfect, but I believe it is the best I can do. Now, you may be thinking: Wait Zach, why don’t you use a catch-all metric, like VORP, BPM, Win Shares, EPM, or RAPTOR to assign these categories? The reason for that is it is really hard to evaluate players who are new to the league. These metrics tend to favor old players, as, big shock, players get tend to improve within their first few years in the league. To illustrate, Victor Wembanyama has 3.7 Win Shares, but Cameron Payne has 11.7 Win Shares. Nobody would say Cameron Payne is better than Wemby. So, while I like these metrics for comparing individual seasons, they are not great for evaluating players over their careers necessarily.
I actually would like to, at some point, redo this evaluation with a more objective criteria to make it as non-controversial as possible. That said, I have already spent too much time on this article, and as such, probably won’t get to that for a while. Plus, I am not sure it would do a significantly better job at evaluating player outcomes than this article does, for the reasons I have already explained.
For the sake of transparency, here is a list of players who qualified for at least one of the categories, along with the designation I gave them. Feel free to tell me where I am wrong:
Jayson Tatum: All-NBA
Jonathan Isaac: Starter
Jabari Smith Jr.: Star
Evan Mobley: Star
Isaiah Jackson: Role Player
Charles Bassey: Role Player
Chet Holmgren: All-NBA
Jalen Duren: Star
Mark Williams: Starter
Walker Kessler: Starter
Myles Turner: Starter
Skal Labissiere: Bust
Deyonta Davis: Bust
Cheick Diallo: Bust
Zach Collins: Role Player
Ike Anigbogu: Bust
Mo Bamba: Role Player
Robert Williams: Starter
Jaxson Hayes: Role Player
Onyeka Okongwu: Starter
Udoka Azubuike: Role Player
Domantas Sabonis: All-NBA
Lauri Markkanen: Star
Jaren Jackson Jr.: Star
Bruno Fernando: Role Player
Jalen Smith: Role Player
Aleksej Pokusevski: Role Player
Zeke Nnaji: Role Player
Marko Simonovic: Bust
Alperen Sengun: All-NBA
Kristaps Porzingis: Star
Diamond Stone: Bust
Michael Porter Jr.: Starter
Mfiondu Kabengele: Bust
Isaiah Todd: Role Player
Devin Booker: All-NBA
Malik Monk: Starter
Luka Doncic: All-NBA
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander: All-NBA
Josh Okogie: Role Player
Ja Morant: All-NBA
Tyler Herro: Star
Killian Hayes: Bust
Tyrese Haliburton: All-NBA
Cade Cunningham: Star
Jalen Green: Starter
Ryan Rollins: Bust
Ben Simmons: All-NBA
Jamal Murray: Star
Markelle Fultz: Starter
Lonzo Ball: Starter
DeAaron Fox: Star
Zhaire Smith: Bust
Kevin Huerter: Starter
Devin Vassell: Starter
Jalen Suggs: Starter
Benedict Mathurin: Starter
Dalen Terry: Role Player
Amen Thompson: Star
Ausar Thompson: Starter
Kris Dunn: Role Player
Jevon Carter: Role Player
Rodions Kurucs: Bust
DeAnthony Melton: Role Player
Zion Williamson: All-NBA
Matisse Thybulle: Role Player
Tremont Waters: Bust
Leandro Bolmaro: Bust
Herb Jones: Starter
Jared Butler: Role Player
Dyson Daniels: Role Player
Gary Payton II: Role Player
Markquis Nowell: Bust
John Collins: Starter
Jawun Evans: Bust
Collin Sexton: Starter
RJ Barrett: Starter
Aaron Nesmith: Starter
Vernon Carey Jr.: Bust
Cameron Thomas: Role Player
Victor Wembanyama: All-NBA
Brice Sensabaugh: Role Player
Buddy Hield: Starter
Kay Felder: Bust
Alec Peters: Bust
Chandler Hutchison: Bust
Rui Hachimura: Starter
Dylan Windler: Bust
Grant Riller: Bust
Filip Petrusiv: Bust
Luka Garza: Bust
Keegan Murray: Starter
Tari Eason: Starter
Karl-Anthony Towns: All-NBA
D’Angelo Russel: Starter
Donovan Mitchell: All-NBA
DeAndre Ayton: Starter
Trae Young: All-NBA
Wendell Carter: Starter
Jarrett Culver: Bust
Chuma Okeke: Role Player
Grant Williams: Role Player
Daniel Oturu: Bust
Franz Wagner: Star
Brandon Miller: Star
Dereck Lively II: Starter
Chinanu Onuaku: Bust
Willie Cauley Stein: Role Player
Brandon Clarke: Starter
Delon Wright: Role Player
Sindarius Thornwell: Bust
Xavier Tillman: Role Player
Neemius Queta: Role Player
Bol Bol: Role Player
Frank Kaminsky: Role Player
Denzel Valentine: Role Player
Cameron Johnson: Starter
Derrick White: Star
Obi Toppin: Role Player
Payton Pritchard: Role Player
Trayce Jackson-Davis: Starter
Corey Kispert: Role Player
Sample sizes of each group respectively:
Old Dawgs: 8
Ooos: 14
Thieves: 19
Old Buckets: 11
YE Guards: 14
Young Drop-Bigs: 20
Half-icorns: 6
Yoos: 5
BPM Bois: 26
Young Dogs: 12
YES Forwards: 7
YES Guards: 14
YES Bigs/Unicorns: 13
My picks are DaRon Holmes, who was close to qualifying as an Ooo and as an Old Bucket, and Tyler Smith, who came close to qualifying as a Young Bucket.