Chucking Darts 2022 NBA Draft Dartifesto and Final Dart Board
Thanks to all the folks who put out excellent work and make me better at this stuff, which are too many to fully name. But check out @DraftPow, check out @mikegrib8, @ChipJNBA, check out Rafael Barlowe at NBA Big Board, check out PD Web’s written work and Let’s Watch Film Series, check out the Stepien, check out @redrockbball, check out Upside Swings, check out No Ceilings, check out @MavsDraft, check out Draft Strickland, check out CJ Marchesani, check out @WhichCarolina, check out Hunter Cruse, and check out all the stuff they check out.
And thank you very much to everyone who follows my podcast. Thanks very much to my guests, many of whom appear above but this year have also included the great Jonathan Tjarks, Matt Pennie, Sam Vecenie, and Bryan Kalbrosky. I’m going to keep it going as long as I can and hopefully supplement with much more written work.
And one more eternal thanks to @Barttorvik and his site, barttorvik.com.
Quick Notes:
1. These will not be full fledged scouting reports. I leave my podcast for that. These are big picture thoughts about how the players fit and function within the hierarchy of the league.
2. When I list these prospects, I include what I see as their primary functions on offense, in order of the skills at which they will excel most. Post semi-colon, I do the same for defense.
Now, onto the darts. Heads up: given the variance of opinion on the top of the draft, I’m going to indulge myself a bit in talking about the very top. Enjoy! And remember, it’s ok to be wrong about sports…
2022 Dartboard
Tier 1: What Makes a Number 1 Pick Really?
It is hard imagining a draft dividing more opinion at the very top than this one. It certainly has not happened to this degree since 2013, but evaluators regarded the top of 2013 with pessimism. The top 4 in 2022 carry with them plenty of optimism, and let’s be clear: these 4 prospects are all awesome players. Motivated, disciplined, futuristic beams of talent. And there are three words that keep coming up in categorizing that talent:
Skill for size.
(plus Jaden Ivey, but we’ll get to him. Please bear with me).
Skill for size. Skill for size. Skill for size. Three 6’10+ players with uncommon skill for their size. The question that has continued to stick with me throughout this cycle is how complimentary that phrase really is. On one hand, it’s incredibly complimentary, and a declaration about where the league has been going for years. Bigger and bigger players who can do everything traditionally reserved for smaller and smaller ones. On the other hand, that phrase can be a little bit of a crutch. After all, Boban has plenty of skill *for his size.* But his size and lack of fluid athleticism limits how much he can affect a game possession by possession.
The real question is how skilled are these players relative to the rest of the league regardless of size. More specifically, what sorts of “number 1 value” might Jabari, Chet, Jaden, or Paolo return? To me, there are broadly two possible categories. Let’s start with the one most teams generally look to the draft for:
Number 1 Offensive Options
The one player thought of most likely to this bill is Paolo Banchero. Paolo’s 11th hour surge to the tippy top of boards is rooted in the chances that he could eventually power a top 10 NBA offense through his dribbling, passing, footwork, and strength. If Paolo qualifies as that type of prospect, this analysis gets much easier. And make no mistake, that is what is required for offensively-tilted players like Paolo to return number 1 value.
For proof, check out this list of current true-blue number 1 offensive options, in no particular order:
Steph Curry
Luka Doncic
Lebron James
Giannis Antetekounmpo
Zion Williamson
Kevin Durant
Damian Lillard
Nikola Jokic
Joel Embiid
Jayson Tatum
Trae Young
Jimmy Butler
Kawhi Leonard (and if he’s injured, Paul George)
Ja Morant
That represents 14 teams. Nearly half the league. Let’s make it an even 18 by incorporating these extremely talented offensive players who have already fit snugly into more egalitarian but nonetheless very very good NBA offenses;
Karl-Anthony Towns
Anthony Edwards
Devin Booker
Chris Paul
Deandre Ayton
Donovan Mitchell
Demar Derozan
Zach Lavine
Lamelo Ball
I’m leaving off some very talented dudes from that list. But we are basically at two thirds of the league already.
The players in that list have games that differ wildly. But what I can’t shake while thinking about that while size helps amplify the skillsets of those players, it’s the skills that matter. After all, those players come in all shapes and sizes. But elite skill is what distinguishes them from the rest of the league.
Naturally, that raises the question of which skills really matter. Look at that list above one more time. The one skill that translates to all of those players, without exception, is efficient scoring. Whether that’s through high volume 3 point shooting (Steph, Trae, Lavine, Lillard, KAT, Durant, Tatum, etc.) free throw generation (Luka, Jimmy, Demar, Lebron, Giannis, Embiid, Zion, etc.), or overall efficient dominance inside the arc (Jokic, Paul, Demar again, Embiid again, Luka again, you get the point), number 1 offensive options have to be able to score really, really efficiently. That isn’t some earth shattering insight, but in draft evaluation, it’s easy to not only lose the forest for the trees, but the trees for the tree, the tree for the bark, and the bark for the sap.
Case in point: I believe that evaluators can place too much emphasis on a prospect’s playmaking skills. Understandably so, because playmaking is quite awesome and aesthetically pleasing, but the NBA is a league full of such talent on the court and the sidelines that players generally don’t get to play unless they can make at least sound decisions when the ball reaches them. That baseline of tertiary playmaking competence, in most cases, lowers the burden for any player to be an individually brilliant playmaker.
Individual brilliance can be a bonus, of course. And if there were a truly brilliant individual playmaker in this draft, a Lamelo level playmaker, I’d say so. Paolo is certainly the best of the top tier. But despite his dribbling and passing talent *for his size* I do not view him as a future brilliant NBA playmaker. His handle is solid, but not truly dextrous and creative. His passing is solid, but I have not seen him come up with passes that good NBA passers can’t make.
So, that brings us back to scoring efficiency. While Paolo excels at certain aspects of scoring (he took 188 layups and dunked 40 times this year, both outstanding marks, with at least a solid portion of those unassisted) his FT% (73) and 3p% (33) were both subpar. His true shooting fell underneath Chet, Ivey, and Jabari (a function of those lower percentages, and Paolo’s preference for operating in the midrange). And while shooting frequently improves in the NBA, it improves for good college shooters too, not just mediocre ones. Nearly all the players on that star list above scored more efficiently as pre-NBA players than Paolo, and the ones that didn’t tended to be either genius playmakers (Lamelo) or absolutely exceptional athletes with unpolished games (Ant, Lavine, Donovan Mitchell, etc)
Where does that leave Paolo? Let’s try comparing him to other players who took the same kinds of shots: Dunks, a bunch of layups, and some threes. Paolo had 41 dunks, attempted 130 3s, and attempted 188 layups according to barttorvik.com. Those shots mimic what NBA offenses try to generate.
Since 2008, here are the high major conference freshman who have crossed a similar threshold: 30 dunks, 100 3s attempted, 150 layups attempted:
RJ Barrett
Jabari Parker
Paolo Banchero
Lu Dort
Ignoring that list’s Dukish tint, the commonalities are revealing. All players strong for their size whose games revolved around leveraging that strength on drives, but none that were truly gifted 3 point shooters or nuclear athletes in getting off the ground (Jabari Parker, whose career was derailed by injury, probably comes the closest to that “nuclear athlete” label). Those players also posted unremarkable true shooting percentages and, to this point, have struggled to score efficiently or power efficient NBA offenses.
Might that turn around for RJ and eventually happen for Paolo? Sure. There’s a theory that Paolo added too much muscle before his freshman year and it drained some athleticism from his game. There’s a theory that keeping that weight off might also smooth out his shot some. I don’t have much of an opinion on that front other than NBA players tend to gain muscle mass and weight throughout their 20s rather than lose it. So we’ll see.
Paolo will be a really good player, of course. Skill for size matters for something, and Paolo looked great, particularly late in the season, in attacking closeouts and making quick passing reads because it tended to speed up his otherwise just-ok first step a bit. He will certainly fit snugly as a secondary scorer playing off of a more efficient number 1 option than he. But I ultimately see him in company closer to that brute-strength trio of Barrett, Dort, and Parker, than the star-laden list above. I do not see him as a number 1 scoring option, and given his unremarkable defensive projection, ultimately not a number 1 level prospect.
I have singled Paolo out here because he is most commonly associated with that “Number 1 Scoring Option” designation. It’s worth it to mention Jaden Ivey. Simply put, Jaden is the best athlete in the draft with a basketball in his hands. Unequivocally, inarguably, period, full stop, whatever rhetorical cliche you like. He’s the one, by a lot. Even better, he regularly gets his own shot. That gives him a very, very high floor. How high? Lucky you, it’s list time again!
The Unofficial Chucking Darts List of “Nuclear Basketball Athletes Who Could Get Their Own Shot” by Draft Class, 2012-2022
2022: Jaden Ivey
2021: Jalen Green, Jon Kuminga (sort of), Scottie Barnes (sort of), Evan Mobley (sort of)
2020: Anthony Edwards
2019: Zion Williamson, Ja Morant
2018: none
2017: DeAaron Fox (sort of), Donovan Mitchell (sort of)
2016: Ben Simmons, Jaylen Brown (sort of)
2015: none
2014: Joel Embiid, Andrew Wiggins
2013: Giannis
2012: Anthony Davis
Pretty good, huh? Like preposterously, overwhelmingly good, right? Go back a little further and you run into John Wall, Derrick Rose, and Russ, who commonly come up here and there as comps for Mr. Ivey. Turns out, nuclear athleticism with some measurable skill is a very, very safe bet. Also worth noting is that Ivey’s team revolved around two bigs playing post up ball while Ivey was forced to float around the perimeter without much scripted direction from the sidelines. Frustrating, to say the least. But it did forge some off-ball development in Ivey, and in an NBA offense, his ability to sprint around picks and engage in NBA actions with NBA level initiators will attract a lot of defensive attention. He will generate gravity without even taking a shot.
When he does shoot, it’s with a “Moreyball” tint: 3s, layups, and FTs forever. His shooting touch improved markedly from his frosh to soph year at Purdue, and checked in at 36% on 3 and 75% from FT (an improvement in both areas from his freshman year), both on very good volume given his team’s circumstances. Jaden has plenty to improve in his game, namely the glaring lack of a midrange game and a loose handle. His sort of athleticism tends to allow those qualities to improve in short order.
Bluntly, if Jaden Ivey were two inches taller, he’d be my number 1 prospect. That’s how much I believe in his ability to blow by NBA defenders, warp NBA defenses on and off the ball and hit the 3s defenses will be terrified to take away out of fear for his drives. His passing will come on organically as those defenses keep warping for him night after night and good passing windows become commonplace. But without true wing size or truly breathtaking shooting polish, he checks in below Chet Holmgren and Jabari Smith, who embody more fully the second, more subtle category of possible number 1 pick value.
Number 2 Offensive Option with Deep Playoff Defensive Versatility
Last year, my top 2 players in a truly incredible 2021 draft were Evan Mobley and Cade Cunningham. Neither player struck me as a true blue future number 1 offensive option on par with the list above, but both stuck out for just how well they would fit on teams with the sorts of offensive stars that are shockingly commonplace in today’s stacked NBA. Both could guard multiple important positions (in Mobley’s case, the very best players in the world), and both possessed enough offensive talent to win with in deep playoff series given the proper matchup and surrounding context.
I feel similarly (albeit to a lesser extent) about both Jabari Smith and Chet Holmgren. The analogies to Cade and Mobley are not perfect, but let’s start with the slightly more understandable one: Chet Holmgren and Evan Mobley. Both 7 ft+, both freshly 20 years old at draft time, both skinnier than some would prefer, both deriving most of their value on defense, both incredibly smart and graceful (here it comes) *for their size* but for anyone’s size as well. The main differences between the 2 is that Mobley is the clearly better athlete (a g*nerational one) and Chet is probably the slightly more talented shooter.
But the blueprint Mobley and the Cavs employed to immediate success should mimic what Chet and his team use as well: set him up on the wing, play him next to a solid NBA big that can absorb the sort of punishment that grown NBA centers endure every night, and let Chet cook with and around him. Have Chet disrupt everything he can around the rim as a weakside defensive helper, enable Chet to recover onto shooters and use his incredible length to still bother them on drives, and empower him to communicate and keep everyone else engaged on that end. Watch your defense rise into the top 10 mostly overnight. It’s a lofty goal considering Chet isn’t going to be on Mobley’s level as a switch big, but Chet is so good at positioning himself that I think over time he will earn the All-Defense hype Mobley managed to garner in Year 1. Hell, he’ll probably see Evan on the First Team some day.
Offensively, Chet is a bit less certain but still in Mobley’s mold. Mobley used his exceptional mind and passing ability to form immediate chemistry from the mid post and in with Jarrett Allen and both on cuts and in PnR with Darius Garland. Chet should be much the same way. Chet’s shooting touch at Gonzaga was simply unbelievable, but his numbers did tend to dip against high major competition over the course of the season. Part of the reason why was that Gonzaga was more aggressive playing Chet at center against smaller (though still solid) WCC competition and in those games, when Chet got a rebound and led a semi-transition break he was absolutely unstoppable. Those lineups and opportunities came less frequently against power schools.
I’m not too worried, of course, but I always thought Mobley had the athleticism to eventually blow past defenders and get any shot he wanted from the wing. Chet’s ballhandling might be ahead of where Mobley’s was, but his first step most certainly is not. I don’t quite think he will enjoy the smoothest transition as an offensive wing, but that shooting touch will make up for enough to ensure he is a very valuable player.
In the playoffs, against the right matchups, particularly those in which both teams go small and Chet can be more confidently deployed at center, his team will suddenly enjoy a major offensive advantage. One reason I prefer Chet to Paolo is I believe Chet is much, much better suited to that responsibility defensively than Paolo, and will enable his team to thrive, and win, when the matchup allows. And in the playoffs, teams go small a lot. Not every matchup will necessarily confer Chet’s team that opportunity, but we’re getting awful close to number 1 pick territory…
Which brings me to my number 1 prospect, Jabari Smith Jr. Now, Jabari and Cade are much different offensive players. Cade excelled in his playmaking (he’d be the best playmaker in this class) and displayed the sort of excellent all around shooting talent for a playmaking wing that Paolo couldn’t quite reach. Jabari, on the other hand, has oodles of shooting talent. In fact, that is the great extent of his pitch as a prospect. He has some of the prettiest shooting mechanics, that translated to 42% shooting from 3 on a bunch of volume, that we have seen from a freshman wing (a young freshman, at that. Jabari is easily the youngest of these 4 prospects). There are concerns about other parts of Jabari’s offensive game, but the time has come to discuss if Jabari is truly a historical shooting prospect, or merely a historical shooting prospect (watch out!) *for his size*.
Turns out, it’s a little bit of both. Jabari shot 187 3s this year at 42% on 26% usage (another very healthy number for a freshman). Here is the list of high major freshman who shot at least 150 3s at 39%, with at least 22% usage, eventually drafted in the 1st round, in descending order of height:
Jabari Smith Jr
Brandon Ingram
Cade Cunningham
Ben McLemore
Klay Thompson
D’Angelo Russell
Jamal Murray
OJ Mayo
Malik Monk
Only 3 players on this list (Mayo, Monk, and McLemore) who don’t project to make nine figures in the league or ever make an All Star game. (Each one of those players had very particular off court considerations that we need not go into or apply to Jabari, FWIW). But the other thing to notice about this group is how the value of players rises roughly as you make the players taller. Put McLemore to the side, and the tallest four players are Jabari, Ingram, Cade, and Klay. Not coincidentally, Jabari, Cade, and Klay were/are regarded as the best defensive prospects of this entire list as well.[1]
So we know that Jabari keeps a great three point shooting company. But what about the rest of his game? The fact that he only took 62 layups this season, compared to Paolo’s 188? Only dunked 15 times, compared to Paolo’s 41? That he seems allergic to dribbling? That he doesn’t resemble the kind of playmaking wing like Cade and Ingram that draftniks love?
Well, those concerns are valid. I would not draft Jabari and turn the keys of the entire offense over to him. I also would not expect him to play in an offense as clogged as Auburn’s was this past season. Unlike Paolo, who played with at least 3 other NBA players, including an elite shooting prospect in AJ Griffin, Jabari played with one other NBA player: Walker Kessler, a behemoth center who clogged the paint and made it all the more attractive for Jabari to rise and fire rather than find his way in the paint. The rest of Auburn’s shooting cast was, at minimum, uninspiring. For context, Brandon Ingram only dunked 17 times his freshman year. Cade? 7.
Like Mobley, I am confident that the NBA will eventually give Jabari, on his drafting team, an offense efficient enough to create looks for him at the rim as a cutter or a secondary attacker. When that happens, efficient 20 point nights will become the norm. Even with his game radically tilted towards jump shooting, Jabari still scored more efficiently than Paolo and drew fouls at a higher rate. That gap should widen as Jabari finds more layups. Paolo, fair or not, will have to figure out the balance between lead and secondary playmaker to find his most efficient self. Jabari can shrug his shoulders and just rain his way into efficient scoring pretty early on.
Jabari’s connection to Cade comes much more on the defensive end, where they both project to adroitly guard up and down the wing spectrum on and off the ball despite a lack of elite athleticism. There is no need for Jabari’s drafting team (or Cade’s Pistons) to concern themselves with how to best fashion the roster around them. They make that task incredibly easy with how smoothly they can play with anyone else. They also don’t have to worry about particular playoff matchups as Chet’s, Jaden’s, or Paolo’s team will, because Jabari’s jumper could travel to the NBA Finals next season and draw defensive attention. In 3 seasons, when his body has matured and his defensive skill rounds into form, Jabari will be able to compete and thrive in practically any matchup that does not ask him to handle large amounts of PnR.
And that’s the name of the game at number 1, isn’t it? To find players who are easy to picture thriving in the highest stakes matchups? The NBA produced 3 historic MVP candidates this year. They were all eliminated after the conference semifinals. Defensive versatility and perimeter shooting ruled the day, and have never been in higher demand. In this extremely difficult year to evaluate talent, I am chucking my dart at Jabari and Chet being the two to best meet those needs. Jabari gets the slightest of edges because historic shooting talent tends to beat great defense, and so he is my number 1 pick.
Here comes the fun part.
Tier 2: Starters with Role Value (3rd Starters)
Faint Bets at Stardom
In last year’s analysis, I wrote four questions that i keep in mind when I reach the point in the draft where stardom is less likely and role player value becomes the goal:
1) Is the prospect good enough for NBA minutes right away?
2) How likely is the prospect to meaningfully improve?
3) How valuable is the prospect’s potential role?
4) How well does the prospect project to perform relative to others performing the same role?
Of the remaining prospects, AJ Griffin and Jalen Duren answer each of these questions most emphatically. Griffin’s justifications for doing so mirror arguments already stated for Jabari: he is an historically good shooting prospect and possesses good wing size. AJ is, to my eye, a better shooter than Jabari off the dribble, but very low usage coupled with some injury concerns push him out of the top tier to number 5 (and off that tidy list Jabari joined. AJ lacked the shooting attempts to qualify). When he was in high school, Griffin was every bit a top tier wing athlete, but after injuries and COVID caused him to miss the better part of two competitive pre draft seasons, the speed of the game challenged him at Duke, mostly on defense. And still: AJ posted elite shooting from all over the court, including (very) deep 3s. AJ’s shooting will get him on the court early while his team endures some understandable growing pains and AJ finds his NBA athletic norm. If that norm ever returns to his high school standard, AJ can be the best player in this draft.
Duren, meanwhile, might be the most underrated player in the class, an unfortunate victim of “BIG MEN ARE EASY TO FIND RIGHT?” talking points. Some kinds of big men are easy to find, yes. Ones as strong and athletic as Duren, the youngest player in this year’s class, are not. Duren joins Bam Adebayo and Robert Williams III as explosive bigs who will move more quickly than 90%+ of their matchup counterparts. Duren has the feel on both ends to play right away and start improving, and while he may not be quite as switchable or quite as explosive as Bam and RW3, he isn’t far off, and he is young enough that one can fairly expect his athleticism to improve a bit from his current level. Teams are always looking for players who trouble the best offensive players in the world. Duren is a good dart to join that list.
Starting in the NBA is very, very difficult. Every crop of draft picks is battling the 10 or 15 best players from the 10 or so previous draft classes for those spots. These three NCAA standouts are good bets to start early in their careers because of two qualities that stick out not only in this class, but stick out relative to previous ones as well: athleticism and productivity.
Davis and Murray were the offensive fulcrums of their respective Big Ten teams. Wisconsin revolved around Davis, Iowa around Murray. Wisconsin runs a slower, half court game, and so Davis got plenty of reps in the PnR, midrange, and as a post up guard. Iowa played five out, and got Murray loads of looks in transition, which he converted at near historic rates. Both produced: Murray, at 21 years old, averaged nearly 24 points and 9 rebounds. Davis, at 19 years old, averaged nearly 20 points, 8 rebounds (a wild number for a guard), and a couple of assists. Both were at the very least active on defense, where despite heavy, heavy usage, both managed to garner plenty of deflections. Of course, deflections aren’t everything on defense, and Iowa was not a particularly good defensive team despite the efforts of Keegan and his twin brother Kris, an underrated dart in his own right. I preferred Johnny’s feel for how to manipulate picks on offense into good scoring looks despite subpar spacing, and I expect Johnny to be the more physical defender and player despite lacking Keegan’s wing size. Nonetheless, the combination of heavy usage and defensive deflections is very encouraging:
https://twitter.com/ChuckingDarts/status/1531341534389477378?s=20&t=cxDUOhswImqi-ZEjI5xFyA
Mathurin is likely the best athlete and best shooter of this bunch. As a 19 year old, the Pac 12 player of the year averaged nearly 18, 5.5 rebounds, and 2.5 assists ( a number that notably rose toward the end of the year) playing in an egalitarian, advanced offense for Arizona, one of the best teams in the country. Over two college seasons, Mathurin shot 38% for 3 and 79% from the line, and those numbers are a bit low when you factor that Mathurin was young relative to his grade and he randomly struggled with unguarded catch and shoot 3s this year, a trend which should promptly reverse. Like Davis and Murray, Mathurin has visibly improved during his time at college, and underclassmen who do that while maintaining a good athletic and shooting profiles are always great bets to succeed in the NBA.
The only reason Mathurin is 8th and not 5th or 6th (or higher) is that his off the dribble game needs a lot of work. Given my thoughts on Jabari, I do not worry too much when athletic shooters have trouble dribbling, but Mathurin is a guard/wing, not a big wing, and he is a very good shooter, not a great one. There is a danger that his drafting team pigeonholes him a bit into an off ball role that will curb the development of his game off the bounce, which would put a hard cap on his ability to start successfully in the league.[2]
Ultimately, though, a bet on Mathurin is a good one. Among a sterling class of workers, Mathurin sticks out for his drive, confidence, and bankable ability to improve. Though his defense lags behind his athletic profile, Mathurin should improve with NBA floor time, which his shooting and rim finishing should get him.
Once more, this kid is already good. He’s the Pac 12 player of the year. Last year, Mathurin made 83 3s, dunked the ball 38 times, and had an assist to turnover ratio of 1.4. Here are all the high major college players to in the last 15 years with a year of 30 dunks, 50 made 30s, and a positive A:TO ratio standing 6’6 or taller:
Keegan Murray
Lonzo Ball
Mikal Bridges
Bennedict Mathurin
RJ Barrett
Miles Bridges
Those are 6 players who will all make $100m in the NBA.
Tier 3: Good Bets at Starter Outcomes
These six are a half step down from the previous tier because while they are all good bets to find starting roles, their production is a bit less translatable to the NBA for one reason or another. A couple, like Dieng and Branham, are ok but not great athletes, and so it will take them longer to reach a defensive level that teams can rely on. In the meantime, their offense will need to be very, very efficient to merit court time. Branham, whose shooting numbers were nearly on par with AJ Griffin’s, is the better bet to prove that worth, but I like Dieng most out of this group because he possesses the rarest intersection of skills. At 6’9+, Ousmane is one of the best playmakers off the dribble in the class, and shot nearly 36% from 3 in Australia’s professional league in the second half of the season. Once his body fills out a little bit, he could be a very valuable NBA starter if his touch continues to improve. In the meantime, he will struggle with the physicality of the game in what NBA court time he can lock down.
Daniels and Sharpe are both bigger guards with the athletic profiles to play right away. Dyson is the best point of attack defender in the class, and his unique blend of awareness and length manifests in very fun ways: as a connecting passer, as a help defender, and as a rebounder. Dyson’s timing on rebound jumps is impeccable, and his drafting team will love the transition looks he can produce with his outlets. Unfortunately, that still leaves the matter of our old friend efficient scoring, and while Dyson has some shooting touch that seemed to improve late in the G-League season, I question a how many efficient looks and finishes he will create for himself if his 3 point shot is league average or worse.
Sharpe, meanwhile, did not play at Kentucky for a myriad of somewhat mysterious reasons. However, the former no. 1 high school recruit plays a bit like Bennedict Mathurin: great vertical bounce, great movement shooting profile. Sharpe has demonstrated a willingness (ok, more than a willingness) to shoot off the dribble at lower levels, and I believe he projects as a good to very good NBA shooter. However, I value Mathurin’s overall athleticism and visible improvement enough to separate him into a different tier. My concern about Mathurin’s dribbling applies to Sharpe as well, and I fear a bit more that Sharpe and/or his team might lean into his NBA ready skill a bit too heavily and pigeonhole him into that off ball shooting role.
Eason and Sochan are both annoyed it’s taken me this long to mention them. They’re so annoyed they’re going to do something quite rude to me the next chance they get. Maybe they’ll grab a cookie I’m about to eat out of my hand and hold it out of reach with their preposterously long arms. Maybe they’ll hip check me while I’m out jogging and send me into a nearby county. As disruptive wing defenders, that’s how they operate. They’re here to bother and frustrate well meaning offensive players until those players begrudgingly give them the ball.
All drafts have defensive agitators, but usually those players are 6’2, not 6’8. As I mentioned with Jalen Duren, if you can make life difficult for the best scorers in the world, you will have NBA value. Eason and Sochan check in a bit lower because their role on offense is a bit less sure than Duren’s. Sochan shot under 30% from 3 and under 60% on free throws, and I don’t need to perform a tidy stat query to tell you that isn’t very promising. But Sochan is so smart and instinctual as a passer and cutter that he has a great chance to start in time. He is perpetually physical, and will screen, re-screen, and re-locate his way into passable offensive situations.
The only reason I’m a bit lower on Sochan than consensus, which has him in the top 11, is that the very best NBA defenders tend to be incredibly athletic. Look at any all-defensive team from the last five years, and you’ll find names like Giannis, Bam, Jaren Jackson, Anthony Davis, Joel Embiid, and Rudy Gobert filling the frontcourt spots. All were notably more athletic as prospects than Sochan, who is a solid but unexceptional forward athlete.
Eason, my preference of the two, is more athletic and a better shooter. He shot nearly 80% on FTs and nearly 36% from 3, admittedly on average volume that was rarely contested. In a stale offensive and defensive LSU system, Eason constantly stirred the pot, terrorizing ballhandlers, jumping passing lanes, and going after everything as a help defender. He gambled a bit too much and developed a foul-happy reputation, but my money is on him “settling” into a valuable, disciplined wing defender once his NBA life depends on it. On offense, when he wasn’t taking open 3s, he was driving into overmatched bigs with his right end, forcing physical contact with abandon and generating nonstop foul calls. Those are wonderful, aggressive qualities that will help him stick in the league, but I question a bit how often Eason’s limited dribble game and nonexistent left hand will enable him to get all the way to the rim to get those calls.
Sochan’s tape revealed a more cerebral player on both sides of the ball, which has reportedly impressed teams more than Eason’s chaotic playstyle has. But at the end of the day, both these guys will need to make corner 3s to survive, and while I’m betting on both of them, I like Eason a bit more to find that groove consistently.
The Rest, aka the Great Wing Glut of 2022
I’m going to list the rest of my board, with highlights for players I value more than consensus and the stray note here or there.
Tier 4: Good Role Value with Starter Theories
Tier 5 Good Role Value, Starter Theory a bit more distant
Tier 6: High Bench/Guaranteed Contracts
Tier 7: Priority Two way
Find your dartboard, start chucking.
[1] It’s worth noting that while Ingram was not regarded as a defensive prospect, his steal and block numbers were right in line with Jabari’s. Even “weaknesses” tend to be strengths in college for really good NBA players.
[2] For reference, see last year’s dart James Bouknight.