Fade The Hype

Everyone has a draft crush right now, so we decided to do the uncomfortable work: naming the 2026 NBA Draft prospects we’re fading because the market is overdrafting them. I’m not calling these guys bad players. I’m saying the current consensus is often paying for the best highlight, the cleanest box score, or the prettiest archetype label while ignoring the data that predicts whether a role will actually scale in the NBA. 

We start with a quick look at three prospects who chose to return to school and why that’s the right development bet: Braylon Mullins needs more creation and rim pressure, Thomas Haugh needs an offensive identity, and Patrick Nagongba needs real offensive growth to match his defensive upside. Then we get into five names getting pushed up boards, using NBA draft analytics like true shooting percentage, usage rate, assist percentage, turnover rate, offensive rating, and game-level context to show where the floor drops out and why single pop-off games can bamboozle the public. 

Finally, we talk through the most confusing evaluation on my board: Jaden Quaintance. Some people rank him top three, others push him into the teens or 20s, and the split is real. With limited sample size and injuries, the numbers don’t anchor the case, but the tools and defensive upside are exactly what teams chase. The question that ties the whole show together is simple: are you drafting flashes or production? 

If you like NBA draft scouting, big boards, and honest conversations about risk, subscribe, share this with a draft friend, and leave a review with the one prospect you think we’re fading too hard.

Transcript

Welcome And The Fade Premise

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Hey guys, welcome to another episode of the Draft and Stash podcast. It is April 20th, 2026, and on today's show, we are talking about the guys that you should fade, or at the very least, you should not be overdrafting. We'll be just guys in them, guys have decided to go back to school, and one player that I just cannot put my thumb down on. Before that, though, we gotta do the intro.

SPEAKER_01 0:42

One of the most exciting preferences I can remember. And here I've been doing this.

SPEAKER_00 0:48

What's up, everybody? Um, I am Andrew. I'll be your host for the Drafts and Sash Podcast. I think this might be the first time I've actually said my name. So that's kind of weird. I don't know why I haven't been doing that. Um, I've been waiting to do this one for a little bit. Um, everybody right now is talking about who they love in the draft. You know, they're sleepers, they're risers, they're they're guys that they think are gonna be stars. But today I'm gonna flip it. I'm talking about players that I am out on. Now, that doesn't mean I don't think these players are good or they don't have value. I just think the current consensus for these players are much higher than they should be based on a couple of you know singular performances or potential like indicator markers going forward, but not on objectable um data. Um, so for me, I was like not just looking at the games, I'm looking at advanced stats, usage, efficiency, turnovers, real performance under pressure. Uh, and there is just a pattern that starts to show up where some of these guys have moments where they look like stars, but that floor um you know also

Three Prospects Who Return To School

SPEAKER_00 1:48

falls out. Before that, though, I'll kind of want to talk about a few players that uh decided to go back to school, and I think that was the right call. Um, I might be one of the only people that I've interacted with that was really low on Braylon Mullins. Now, uh that's not because I'm blind and I don't see that he is uh you know a six foot five, six foot six wing that looks to be able to you know move really fluid, has a really pretty jump shot, you know, uh got has a little bit of bounce to him, he has some toughness and some grit. I see all that stuff. But uh for me, him going back is is is like you know pretty simple. Um, he's close, but he's not there yet in terms of a well-rounded impact. Uh his strength was uh, you know, his shooting is scoring flashes, but you look at his numbers for shooting, and they were really bad. Uh the issue with my model with him is just there's not enough overall uh offensive creation or physical impact to really justify the early draft capital that people have him going like at the top 20. Uh, more than likely, uh my my issue with with him and with my model is um he has really limited rim pressure and like interior scoring. He didn't really have a natural playmaking feel to him. Um, and he didn't really separate himself athletically to really offset some of his issues. Uh Mullins is one of those guys where you can see the NBA skill, but it's only one or two skills right now. Another year, I think, really gives him a chance to round that out instead of getting stuck as a back end, you know, first round guy. Or, you know, I guess what one of my bigger concerns with Mullins was he would either get um overdrafted, and you know, you look at a guy like you know, Grady Dick, or like you know, players in that range that you know they they looked you know really good potentially, and then you know, either through you know, a misevaluation on talent, uh the team's usage needs, whatever it might be, that person ends up just kind of getting shelved. And now it's like well, you know, Grady Dick might not be playing after his first you know contract. Uh I was kind of just kind of nervous that Mullins would get drafted by some team that thinks that you know he's their almost immediate need at like you know to start at shooting guard, and then he just doesn't do well and then he fails, and then he doesn't get like another chance. So I'm glad that uh he'll go back. I think he'll he'll really develop under Dan Hurley uh and they can kind of like you know, maybe carve out um more offensive things for his game to like really get like on-ball reps and other things like that. The second guy uh was Thomas Hoff um from Florida, who some people kind of like pegged as this, you know, bigger forward who can who was like a gadget guy. Like, you know, he could do a lot of things, uh, not really, you know, a stud at any one thing, but he was really like a classic tools, like energy big forward guy. Um, but he just doesn't have enough offensive uh certainty yet. Um his strengths were his activity, his size, and he's got some defensive flashes, but his offensive profile is still too raw. Even as you know, I think he's a sophomore, he's going back as a junior, he's still pretty raw on offense. Um, he's uh I feel like he's not getting drafted for what he can do right now. He might be getting drafted for what you hope he might be. Uh, and that's the type of player that I think needs to be going back to school. Uh, you know, he really needs to develop a like a clear offensive identity. Is he a stretch guy? Is he a rim runner? Is he a you know offensive connector? Uh he needs to improve his overall you know metrics with his like true shooting, his offensive rating, all that stuff when it wasn't very good. Uh maybe adding strength, consistency could really raise his floor. Um the next guy actually just uh decided to go back to school today, and that is Patrick Nagamba out of Duke. Uh, this is a player that you know you look at and size, mobility, great defensive upside. Um, but he's his offense is just really not there at this current point. You know, he's a person that you know you definitely think could be like a Rudy Gobert type, you know, um, but he's just so limited. You know, you couple that with um these these injuries that he's had, and some of those are coming out and they're they're pretty serious looking, which you know I feel like you know, he probably stays in the draft if he thinks he's like a top 20 bet. Uh going back lets us know that he was probably a back end of the first round type of guy, and he just didn't want to, you know, take a chance on that. So he probably took you know five to six million dollars to stay at Duke. Um, the issues are he's you know being valued like a modern big, but he hasn't shown any baseline to actually justify that. Some of his major flags were you know his low offensive production, you know, coupled with its usage, really minimal creation playmaking. He's still really raw at finishing, you know, in that scoring feel. Uh he's like he's getting mocked like a modern big, but the offense really isn't there. Going back really gives him a chance to actually prove he's more than just a defensive tools project. Hopefully, they can kind of work with him on having a better you know confidence in terms of like his offensive role, you know, just like his clarity, uh improving on his touch, his finishing, you know, maybe his scoring volume. Um, I think he can probably jump to like a tools guy to like a really functional NBA big. Um, all three of these guys I think made the right call. Mullins needs polish, Hoff needs identity, and Nogamba uh needs offense. Instead of getting buried as a second round development guy or a late first round guy, uh, they now have a real chance to come back next year and turn themselves into uh legitimate lottery players. Um, but let's get into uh the five guys I think are gonna be overdrafted.

Why Tonde Yesafu Looks Overvalued

SPEAKER_00 7:09

Um, so um just in general, I I want to reiterate, um, I I do not think these guys are terrible or bad. Um, I just think based on public consensus um and some mock drafts, these guys are just being overvalued without really looking at everything that they bring to the table. Uh the first player I want to talk about is Tonde Yesafu. Um, out of Baylor, he's a freshman. Um he will be, you know, I should uh I think he'll be 19 when he gets drafted. You know, he's a wing, uh, you know, shooting guards, you know, small forward guy. Um his height's around six foot five as we know now. I think he was last weight around 215. His wingspan, it says, you know, maybe around six foot eight. But again, you know, once the combine comes out, we're really gonna have uh, you know, more clear numbers on that. Um he averaged right under 18 points a game, right under six rebound, uh a little over assist uh 1.5 steal. Um geez, assist, uh two steals a game and half um a block per game, which is you know sounds really great. Uh you look at his efficiency profile, um, his field goal percentage, which is only 52.6, um, his three-point percentage was a little over 30. His true shooting is uh under 55. Um, he had a pretty solid usage at a little over 25, um, but his assist percentage was only nine, which is uh really low. Uh and then but the his turnover percentage um is is not bad, though. It's right around like you know 13%, you know. So that's not bad. Uh he knows he's a high usage scoring wing with defensive activity, but really low playmaking and inconsistent shooting efficiencies. Um so the public consensus for uh Tonday's uh you know, roughly late first round, maybe early second. Uh Tankathon, I think, had him going 17th on its board, uh, and then 25th and it's mock. Um rookie scale has him 34th, ESBN has him around 40. Uh, and then there's a couple other places that have you know in that like low 30 range. If it was me, um, based on just my my model score, um, I have him at 53. Uh, I think on my on my big board, after like some adjusted stuff, um, I've got him around 40 or so. Uh, to me, I think he's safe to take um starting around 38. Uh, I would not take him before that. The reasons why I am out on Ty, um, he's the classic. The tools and downhill pop are louder than the half-court offense type of guy. Uh, my model really likes his defensive playmaking, but is skeptical that the scoring package is worth a first round slot. Um, he scores really well in uh in disruption. I think he's like uh first out of uh 77 players, I think, that I've done so far. Um he really uh you know solidifies his uh defensive total. He is in the top 30 there for me, um, but his offensive translation is not great. He uh he scores um around 68 out of the 76 or so players, uh, and then his shooting score is uh 51st out of the 75 or 76, which you know is not abysmal, but it's really not great for what he's gonna be uh you know playing as. Then his uh his playmaking score is also really low. It's um you know 57 out of the 75 players I've done. And then his uh you know three-point percentage rank is like right at 58. His true shooting percentage is uh 69 out of the 75, um, and his offensive rating is at 62 out of 75, and then his box plus minus ranks at 69. So it's really he's a fun athlete and he's a really disruptive defender. But if I'm looking for a wing in the first round, uh I need more evidence that he can actually drive uh efficient offense. You know, he just he just doesn't do enough on offense. You know, he's so like below average compared to the other wings in this draft. Uh, I think if he gets if he's getting taken, it's because people think that they can turn him into something. Um looking just at a few of his games that he had this year, um, January 20th versus Texas Tech, uh, this is the type of game that really exposes his floor. Uh Yesafu uh finishes with just nine points on 32% effective field goal percentage and 32% true shooting. He went one of seven from three. The the bigger issue here is he only had a usage of like a little under 18, meaning that he was he he hello, sorry, meaning he wasn't even heavily involved, but still couldn't create efficient offense. Uh, this is where um I basically look at my model and it's saying that when the jumper isn't falling, there's no rim pressure or playmaking to really stabilize his impact. He becomes a low efficiency score without secondary value, which is really dangerous profile for a wing that is getting first round buzz. The second game that was pretty bad um was February 24th against Arizona. This is a classic empty production game. Uh, he puts up 12 points, but it comes on 40% uh field goal percentage and 38% true shooting with a heavy diet of inefficient mid-range. He shot three of 10 um from mid-range and two of five from uh from beyond the arc. Even more concerning, he had zero assist and almost no defensive disruption in this game. This is a type of performance that doesn't show up on box score conversations, but kills offensive flow. Uh, if he's not scoring efficiently and creating for others, they're just not enough offensive value to justify where he's currently being projected. Uh, and uh another game was uh against Houston, uh January 10th. This is one of the this one is pretty sneaky because the efficiency looks fine on the surface. He shot, you know, 70% true shooting, but the real story is he had seven turnovers um and he almost had a 50% turnover rate in this game, which is pretty brutal. Uh, that's a complete breakdown and decision making against elite competition. This is the difference between tools and NBA ready processing against high-level defenses. He uh he struggles to make quick reads or protect the ball, which is a major red flag for someone being projected as a scoring wing. Now, um, he did have a really great game, uh, and that was uh February 10th against BYU. And this is gonna be the game that really sells people. Uh, he exploited for 37 points on 81 true shooting and 76 effective field goal. He also shot five of eight from three. Uh, this was a full package game for him. Shot making, confidence, volume, but this is exactly the type of performance that can skew perception. When everything is clicking, he looks like a lottery score. The issue is this level of shot making isn't consistent. And when it drops off, there is uh there's not enough underneath it to really maintain his value. Uh, yeah. So I think you know, if you're some people can are really gonna look at its highlights and really talk themselves into thinking he's more than he is, he could be a solid player. I just I have him nowhere near the first round, and hopefully, um uh hopefully a team doesn't get bamboozled with him.

Malik Thomas And The Shooting Trap

SPEAKER_00 13:36

Moving on to another guy that um is slowly building up buzz that I think is unfair to him because he could be a solid player. I just don't think he's there yet. And that is Malik Thomas out of Arkansas. Um he is currently 18. Um, he'll be uh 19 when the season starts, but I he should still be 18 uh around draft time. Uh he is a wing, so he is or a guard, I guess. You know, he's kind of like a bigger you know guard, but you know, he mainly plays at the two. Right around 6'5, 185 pounds. His wingspan says 6'8. We'll see. Um his basic stats were a little over 15 points per game, right under four rebounds, uh, over two assists, uh, around a steal and a half um for steals, and then a little like like a 0.2 on blocks per game, so almost nothing. Uh, you look at his uh profile in terms of his just his ability to shoot, uh his focal percentage is a little over 52. From three though, he was at 42%, which is great. Um, his true shooting percentage is right under 56. His usage um is is a little over 22, which is you know, it's not a high amount, but it's definitely a person that is uh taking on that, you know, next uh you know, ball handler type of role. Um his percentage is at 13.4, and his turn percentage is really good at 8%. Uh, you know, elite shooting guard uh with shooting deficiency, but low rim pressured and really limited inside scoring. So with Malik Thomas, um the public consensus roughly he is a late first to early second. You know, I think rookie skill has him at 31st, Tangathon has him at 33rd. Um, he knows he's mocked, you know, around two, you know, in that in that in that low 30s range. Um, but a lot of people are starting to kind of push him in that first round, especially with other players going back. Um my my current model um has him at 51. I think I have him um after my like adjusted numbers like in the mid-40s, maybe. Uh the reasons why um I'm Alan Thomas, um, he's the easiest person to look at and think uh you know, basically his stats look better than the full projection case here. Uh the shooting numbers are real, but uh my model doesn't love his athletic translation or um or his rim pressure. Uh he grades well in shooting, like he's he's 13 out of 75. Uh his his three-point percentage rank is six out of 75, uh, his free throw rank is 11 out of 75, um, his ball security is five uh out of 75, um, and his scalability rank is a seven out of 75. So all that stuff is great, but the pushback is pretty strong, and that is his athletic um is 71st out of 75, his ceiling score is 67 out of 75, um, his frame is 65 out of 75, his interior pressure is almost last, and his free throw ranking um or his rate and everything is around you know 63 out of 75, and then his rebounding is 57. Um, and his defensive rating is really bad at 71 out of 75. Um, you know, I mean like his his wind share uh uh you know per 40 is also not great, even though a lot of people don't take a lot into that. I just I like I added it as a very minor thing, just because I think you know, people that are able to win over you know long stretches, you know, has does have value. Uh, but his is only 62 out of 75. Um, so it's a really, you know, like like I I buy the jumper. Um I don't buy his his pressure game, his physical pop, or his overall upside enough to really spend a first round pick on him. Um looking at a couple of his games, um, one of his worst ones came against Queens uh December 16th. This is one of the clearest low floor games in uh in basically the entire you know um data set here. Uh he scores just three points on 0-7 from three and zero four from inside. Um he finished with a 14% true shooting. His offensive rating was 78, which basically he was you know 22 points below average per you know one hurt possessions while he while he was out there. Uh the concern is basically in a nutshell, you know, he's extremely reliant on shot making when his jumper isn't there, he doesn't generate easy offense at the rim or through playmaking. That's a major issue for a guard being uh considered in the first round. Uh the next game would be against Georgia, that was January 17th. It's another inefficient outing uh where the lack of physical scoring really shows up. He finishes with nine points on 27% true shooting and 27% effective field goal. Uh, really struggling to get anything, you know, uh, you know, clean offensively. This is where you see that his his athletic, you know, uh issues, uh he's not consistently collapsing um defenses or getting to the line. Without that pressure, he becomes overly reliant on really tough shots, which leads to these really inefficient nights. Um, you look at uh versus Oklahoma, uh, March 13th. This is a complete offensive breakdown game. He shoots 0-6 from inside, 0-6 overall from mid-range and in the paint, finishes with a 37% true shooting on a 27% turnover rate. So, you know, he was turning over almost like every fourth time that he actually touched the ball. Uh, what stands out here is that even when um you know he tries to adjust away from the three-point line, he still can't really generate efficient offense. That raises real concerns about his ability to score at multiple levels against you know better better competition in the NBA. Uh, but you know, you you look at the game on February 18th against Alabama, and this is the type of game that pushes him up boards, he drops 24 points on 86% true shooting. He goes six to eight from three, everything looks really clean, you know, elite shot making spacing, his efficiency. But this is the exact trap. Uh, if you're evaluating him based on nights like this, you're drafting the best case version of Malik Thomas. The concern is uh that that the level of shooting isn't consistent enough to carry his offensive profile. Um, I I think that Malik could be you know a solid wing. I just I think he's another player that really needs to go back. You know, um, you know, he's got really good size. Um he needs to work on just you know, maybe being able to get to the rim better. Um, this could be a ball handling issue, this could be like a burst step issue, but either either way, like, you know, he needs to work with his coaching staff to really understand um maybe how to take his his strides better or or his his like your gait in terms of of him like you're running you know towards the rim. Um, but you know, I he'll probably still go out because you know he's got pretty good buzz and it's a pretty weak wing class, so he might still go first round. I just um I think that uh his people are setting him up to fail. Uh next might be the most controversial

Nate Aymant As A Top Ten Risk

SPEAKER_00 19:49

one. Um and it's one that I have uh you know been talking to people about and I just I'm still confused, and that is Nate Amit out of Tennessee. Um Nate Amit uh you know he's a freshman. He'll be you know 18 even when the season starts. So he's very young. Um he's uh you know six foot ten. He is a forward, so I don't really know what type of Ford he is. If he's small, Ford, a power forward, you know, we'll kind of get into that a little bit. He's got uh a projected great wingspan around seven foot two. He's only 210 pounds, though. Uh his base stats, you know, a little over 17 a game, you know, six you know or so rebounds, uh over two assists, you know, one still a game and only half a block a game. You look at his efficiency stuff, this is kind of where you know a lot of flags start to show up. Um he his focal goal percentage was was under 46. His three three-point percentage was a little over 33, which uh you know was kind of concerning because he was supposed to have like a really nice shot coming in. His true shooting I was uh 54, which for his size isn't really not great. His uses were just over 28%, which is pretty high. And his assist percentage was only 15.4, which is really poor. Uh coupled with his turnover percentage at 15.9, you're you know, he just not really, not really playmaking at any type of level. Uh he's a really high usage scoring four with size and versatility, but his inefficient scoring and turnover concerns are legitimate. Uh the public consensus on on Nate is that he'll go between eight and ten. Uh ESPN has him at eight, uh, rookie skill has him at nine, Tankathon has him at 10. Bleach report recently, I think had him at nine. Uh, guys, I have him based on my model, um, he is at 39. Uh, he is a player that I would not touch with the first round pick. I think he definitely needs to go back and really work on his role in terms of how he's gonna be able to maximize his ability. Um, so basically, in my model, AMA gets drafted on his archetype more than his production certainty. The appeal is obvious. You know, he's six foot ten, he's got real movement skills, but his profile is really shaky for a top 10 bet. His offensive score is just a 5.46, his defense is a 5.49, which are Both, you know, pretty low. Uh, then you look at his shooting scores, um, which you know he his total was around 41 out of 75 players, and then his offensive total was you know 53 out of 75, his field goal percentage rank was 73 out of 75, so which means that he is one of the worst effective field core percentage-based people in my entire model. His true shooting percentage was 71 out of 75. Um, and then his his overall offensive rating was uh 62 out of 75, and his scalability was 50 out of 74. Uh, the biggest red flag that um he had is really is his high usage and got to the line of time, but the efficiency never matches his lottery level offensive value. The um, you know, I understand betting on the frame and flashes, but the top 10 means you're you're uh you're paying for the best version of Nate Aymant, not the person that he actually was this year. Uh, some of his games that uh really worth noting, uh December 2nd versus Syracuse. Um, this is a real high usage uh and inefficient game. Uh, he posted a 62 offensive rating with a 40% true shooting uh while turning the ball over seven times. This is a terrible nightmaric combo. Uh, he has the ball a lot, but the offense completely stalls when he's the primary driver. This is where my model is really flagging something important here. Uh, volume without efficiency is not scalable. Uh, the next game uh was December 6th, uh, basically in the same week. Uh, against you know, even stronger competition, uh, the scoring stroke will show up again. He scores nine points on 30% true shooting on four of 11 from two and zero from three from downtown. This is a really great example of his scoring profile uh just not really translating cleanly. Uh, he's just not efficient on the inside. The jumper was not reliable enough to compensate. It was a really tough combination for a player who's being projected as a high-level offensive wing. Uh, and then March 13th, a few months later, um, this is one of the most alarming games because he shot one of eight from the field on eight percent effective percentage and finishes with just uh 12 points, mostly from free throws. This is the type of game you point to when discussing risk. If a projected top 10 player can have this level of inefficiency, it raises real concerns about his offensive consistency and floor. One of his best games, though, came against Kentucky. That was uh February 7th. Um, which, you know, is when you look at him go, oh wow, he's great. And that was he's you basically he scored 29 points on 73% shooting, uh, four or six from downtown, and he really showed his his entire toolkit here in terms of what was possible. And this this type of game is why he's being pushed up boards, size, shot making, scoring flashes all really come together here. But again, this is the peak version, not the consistent version that we saw all year, uh, which is basically my my my core argument here. Um, and then we have uh Chris Sinak, who I

Chris Sinak And Stretch Big Mirage

SPEAKER_00 24:46

I talked about on my first episode, uh, I guess Morez, but then I talked about Morez last week, so I was I thought I would just go ahead and bring up Chris Sinak again, especially with the other players going out. Uh Chris played um for Houston, the freshman. Um he is going to be 18. You know, he he's a really younger player. Um, you know, he's a center power forward type of guy, you know, he's definitely a big, you know, he's six foot eleven, uh proposed wingspan around 7'3, you know, he weighs 240. Some of his basic stats here, um uh a little like over nine a game, um, you know, over seven rebounds, uh a little under uh one assist per game, a little under one steal per game, and only uh around half a block a game. Looking at his uh efficiency numbers, he shot under 55% uh from the field, he shot a little over 34 from three. Um his true shooting was around 55%, his usage was under uh 20 uh at 19.4, his assist percentage was way down at 5.8 percent, and his turnover was at 12. Um, he's really efficient, low usage big with size, but really minimal offensive creation and in a limited scoring role. Uh so public insistence really has him as a mid-first to early 20s. Uh, you know, he's ranked around 20th on I think on Tankathon. He's 16. Uh he's mocked at 21. Uh ESPN has him 22nd. Uh, and then um Bleach Report, I think, has him at 25 currently. Um, you know, and then I'm seeing him go, you know, in the high teams as well, you know, and um I have him at 62. Uh, so I mean, I I think, you know, I mean, I definitely think, you know, he'll like, you know, he he should be drafted. And clearly, you know, if when I'm doing my my mock draft, I mean like I'm probably gonna have him the first round because I think somebody will take him the first round. I'm saying that I would not take him. Uh, this is where I the this is my biggest uh difference here. Uh so this is probably my strongest anti-consensus take. Uh Senec is being drafted like a modern stretch big um slash up um upside front court player. Uh you know, bet, excuse me. Uh, but Mamano really sees an offensively limited big who is getting too much credit for his projection. The weak spots are very severe. Um, his offensive total for me was 73rd out of 75. His shooting score was 63 out of 75, his creation score was uh you know 73 out of 75. Um, his playmaking uh was 70th out of 75. Um, and then his free throw rank was 71 out of 75. Uh, and then his assist percentage is 71 out of 75, his points rank game, it's just uh 68 out of 75. Um, and then for what I have him as uh as a potential his star ability was dead last. Um, even with decent rebounding and a good team defensive environment, uh, my model basically says the offensive bet is way too thin for a top 20 pick. Um, Chris is getting drafted on the idea of what a modern skill big looks like, but the actual offensive profile in my model is one of the weakest of any player in this range. Um, just looking at a couple of his games here, just kind of like you know, showcase what's going on. You look at Townsend um back in November 8th. Uh, this is one of his worst offensive games of the entire uh you know year, basically. He scores just two points on 13% true shooting. His offensive rating was at 48.8 um for a big. This is very concerning. Uh, you're not really asking him to create offense, but you're asking him to at least finish effectively. Uh, and he couldn't even do that here. Um, versus Tennessee, November 25th, against stronger competition. He struggles again. He only has five points in 34 minutes with an offensive rating of 64. This is where uh my my projection really starts um Jesus. This is where his projection really starts to fall apart. He's not producing efficiently in these matchups. It raises real questions about how his offensive translate is the next level. Uh, versus Arizona. Uh December 21st, uh, this is another low impact offensive game. He has 10 points on 42% true shooting with no real creation or playmaking. This really reinforces the core issue is that he just doesn't generate offense and he's not finishing at a high level. His overall offensive value really becomes limited. Um, but one of his best games came against Baylor, and that was uh January 10th. Um, this is really the type of game that will inflate uh Chris's perception. He posted an offensive rating at 175.9, basically 176 with perfect efficiency. Um, but the context really matters. This was a low usage, limit offensive uh responsibility. Uh he's finishing plays, not really creating them in this game. This is a great example of how efficiency can be really misleading uh when it's not paired with volume or offensive load. Um now I hate this because I think Chris, you know, really shows flashes of being a real NBA player. Um, but that's just it, it was flashes, right? You know, even in high school, it was flashes. Uh and um, you know, there's a good amount of people that were you know concerned about him going to Houston. That was the right fit. Now, I will say everything that I have heard um about him and the coaches and stuff is that he is incredibly coachable and um and he really tries to take everything in. So I think he's a very serious player. Um, he seems like a hard worker. So I think that you know, he can definitely get to where he needs to be. Like for whatever reason, I view him as as like a Morris twin. Um, you know, I feel like he'll be one of those, you know, 6'10 and 6'11, kind of like you know, longer stretch guys who can kind of you know, you know, help a little bit in in like a multiple, you know, type of ways. I just do not see him ever becoming a star. Um, but you know, he's another player that I think needs to go back to school. Um, so hopefully he gets good advice and um he at least for one more year, you know, goes back. Um then finally, uh, I don't know if this one's

Alex Caraban And Low-Creation Value

SPEAKER_00 30:22

really controversial. Uh I kind of just wanted to throw this this last person in because um I've just seen people really talking him up and um it's not annoying me. I just I think that it's just really false praise. Uh, and that is Alex Caravan out of Yukon. Uh so Alex is 23, he'll he'll be 24 when the uh season really starts. Um he's a four, he's around six foot eight, two hundred and ten pounds. I think his wingspan's around six ten or six eleven. Uh looking at his stats, uh, he averaged a little over 13 points per game, a little over five rebounds per game, a little over two assists per game. And then he's right under one on steel and blocks. You look at his efficiency scoring, uh, he shot 57%. Uh from three, he shot uh just under 39. His true shooting percentage is just under 60. His usage is a little over 17, his assist percentage is at 12, and his turnover is at 11%. Uh so he's very efficient, low, low usage for with really strong shooting, but he has really limited creation and upside here. Uh uh the public consensus roughly has him on a very early to uh late 30s second round pick. ESPN has him at 36. I think Ricky Skill had him at 33rd. Uh Tankathon 34. Uh there's some people that have him maybe sneaking into the um the first round. Uh some people have him at 35 and then like 42, I think Bleach Report. Uh, I don't have him drafted. Just being real. Um, I've got him currently at 69 out of the 75 players. Um, and you know, I I think maybe my adjustment has him right out of the first round. I think I've got him maybe like 60 or maybe like 61. Um, I don't think he's safe to even think about drafting until around 45. I think after that, you know, then it's totally fine to take a player like him. Um, so some of the reasons why I'm out uh is you know, Carabin has built his case on on like like his floor. Uh sorry, uh Carabin's case is he uh is built on floor spacing, his IQ, his role player feel. Uh, but my model is basically saying the athletic and advantage creation ceiling is too low to spend real draft capital early. He shoots it well, uh, but that's carrying too much of the of his whole profile. And my model, um, he has his athletic total uh was a 4.3, which is uh you know right around like uh 60 something. Uh his tool score was at a 71 out of 75, his frame score is at 72 out of 75, his ceiling score is a 73 out of 75, his defensive versatility is 74 out of 75, and his NBA size is 73 out of 75. Uh, even on offense, the warning signs fit the eye test. Um, his creation score is a um 71, his shot dependency rank is incredibly high at a 70 uh out of 75, his interior pressure is only 70 out of 75. Um, and his his usage ranks uh 69 out of 75. Um, so basically, I'm I'm not out on Caravan as an NBA player. I'm out on drafting him like he brings more than shooting and uh connective feel. Uh some of the games here for Caravan. Uh February 18th against Creighton. Uh, this is if the shot isn't falling, what do you have type of game? Uh Caravan scores just two points with a 39.6 offensive rating and a 17% true shooting percentage. There's almost no offensive impact here, and that's like one of his major concerns. He doesn't create his own offense. So when the jumper disappears, his value drops significantly. Um, the next one was March 7th against Marquette, and that was another near zero impact game. He goes 0-5 from three, finishes with a 42.7 offensive rating, and a really minimal scoring output. This reinforces basically the same point. His offensive value is heavily tied to shooting efficiency, and when that dips, there isn't enough playmaking or rim pressure to compensate. Uh, and then versus Georgetown, January 17th, uh, this there is a uh it's quieter but an important one. He finishes with seven points on 27% true shooting with low usage and limited involvement. This is the disappearing at game. Um, he's on the floor, but not influencing offense in any real way. Now, uh, you know, he did look really great against BYU uh November 15th, and this is really like the ideal uh Alex Caraman game. He goes, uh he gets 21 points on 92% true shooting with elite efficiency across the board. This is the version that people are going to be drafting, the hyper-efficient, low mistake forward who really spaces the floor. The issue is that this level of efficiency isn't not always there, and when it drops, the rest of his game does not scale up enough to compensate. So just for like a really fast, oh but before I get there, like I don't hate it because it sounds like I'm I might crap in on all these players, and that's not the case. Uh, because I mean I feel like all these guys could easily have value, all these guys could turn into like real players. Um, this is just me being like, you know, I just I think some of these people are really being overvalued for what they they you know really brought. You know, it's for me, it's always Aquaman's razor, you know. Uh don't don't chase what what what you hope it might be, you know, really look at the facts. And this is, I mean, like these people are telling us who they are. Um, so in most cases, that that is the entire tale, right? And you know, in the outliner, you know, sometimes uh these these people do project and hit those the those higher markers, but I I tend to be more you know practical. And so, you know, to me, you know, if this is what it's telling me, and there's all these years of data, this is what's going on, then uh that's kind of just kind of where like I lean.

The Comparison Chart And Draft Ranges

SPEAKER_00 35:42

Um so just a fast uh you know comparison chart here. Um for like Nate Aymant, you've got the public range between like eight to 10. I've got him at 39. I think he's safe to start taking around 30. Um, Chris Sinak, uh, the public range is around 16 to 25. I've got him just at a 60. I think it's safe to take him around 45. Uh Tani Gesifu, uh, the range is 25 to 40, just based on where you are. Um, I've got him um right around 50. Uh, I think he starts he's safe to start taking around like in that 38 range. Um Malik Thomas, the public range is you know between that, you know, 29 to like 36 range. I've got him right around 50. Um, I think he's also safe around that you know 38 or so range. And then Alex Caraban, the public uh is really between like 31 to like 42. Um I don't have him drafted, and I think if you want to take him, you've got to take him like in the high 40s, probably to get real, you know, investment return. Uh now I have a sorry that that that took so long. Um trying to talk fast, but also you know, keep things in mind. Um, I have a player here that uh I am very confused about, and we're gonna get into him. So there's

Jaden Quainton And Tools Versus Data

SPEAKER_00 36:51

a player in this draft that I have seen people have on their big board as high as three, and then they've had him in the 20s, and then they've had him in the teens. Like I am so confused by this player. Um, I really just need to talk to him because based on the numbers, he should be in this overdraft spot. But there's so much limited data, it's also really hard. And that is Jaden Quainton's out of Kentucky. Um, so God, he he so for me, his grade is really poor because uh he has a very low sample size because he he missed almost this entire last year. He missed time before that. His offensive stats are very underwhelming. Um, he's got you know a low true shooting percentage, his offensive rating is not great, his usage to efficiency balance is not great, he has really limited creation and playmaking. So he's got really no strong statistical anchor to really justify this high ranking that he's getting. Um, there's just not enough real repeatable production here to really justify you know a high pick, which is not wrong. But um, you look on the other end, which this is very much gonna be like a numbers versus eye test, right? So the gap comes in between, which I don't want to ignore, and that is because he's being evaluated as a tools archetype bet and not a production bet, right? So, you know, he flashes real rim protection, you know, instincts. He's got really great, you know, switchability for his size, he's got natural timing and his like, you know, mobility. You know, this combo is a really modern NBA defensive anchor upside, um, which alone can really push a guy into lottery conversations. Then you look at his age curve, um, he's very young first class. Like he is he's going to be 18 years old when he when he gets drafted. And I don't think he's gonna turn 19 until like, you know, really late in his in his rookie year. So he's incredibly young. So when you look at him, you know, you really have to think about, you know, around the time he's 21, right? And not just, you know, in his first two years, because you know, he still has a lot of room of growth and and maybe actual growth, you know, you know, physically, because he's only 18 years old. He might grow another inch or two, like who knows? So both of those are really two different different uh uh like evaluations. So I knew like I'm I'm evaluating a guy who is currently 18 years old and was 17. Uh, and so and it's all that stuff's not great looking, but you look at his priors from high school, and uh he had a really great high school pedigree. You know, he he had these really early flashes that look purely NBA, so athletic. Um, but then he comes in and none of that stuff really grades out. Uh, you know, um, but he has some flashes on defense, some some really like awesome like athletic bursts at times. Um, and then you have to look at, you know, there's real scarcity in in his archetype, right? Uh, you know, there's just not many bigs who can protect the rim, move well laterally, and have a real offensive upside at all. So so team, so a player like this is gonna get overdrafted. Um, so I don't know, like, you know, just based on on my numbers and stuff, you know, I I don't want to abandon any of that stuff because it's, you know, there's I think there's some flagging being done here. And that is there's no real offensive floor yet. There's a lack of any statistical dominance, even in his flashes, you know, his injury risk and his his which has delayed his his player development is real. Um, and he's really a high dependency guy that's gonna be on projection. Um, so you know, when he's getting drafted, it's you know, he's getting drafted for basically who who he's gonna be and not who he is now. And you know, for some players, that's just not the case, it's backwards, but with him, it's it's really gonna be like that. You know, it's so it's you know it's definitely gonna be a project guy, you know. Maybe like, you know, when Aaron Jackson Jr., you know, got drafted, you know, some years ago, where you know, there was a lot of stuff there, you know, bad and good, but you saw his size and his movement, you're just like, oh wow, okay, like you know, like there's there's a lot there on defense. And he he ended up hitting like you know, most of those markers and stuff and everything. So, you know, it could be the same thing here with you know JQ. Um, I just don't know. It's so confusing, you know, um, because uh defense is so hard to quantify. Um everybody will tell you that who really follows data. It's there's no real way um besides like you know, I mean like like I've got certain metrics like you know, rim deterrence and uh versatility and scheme impact and things like that, but those really don't fully translate numerical, right? You know, that there's so many the main defensive stats like you know uh you know PER and the defensive, you know, the plus minus, uh, you know, like those are very team heavy to, you know, so like like like like an average defender who's on a really good defensive team might get really held up. And then like a person who's really good at defense on on like an overall team that's not great at defense, you know, his numbers could easily get dragged down. And then, you know, there's a couple of other things um that are just kind of hidden behind, you know, you know, paywalls that I don't really have access to. And even those are really based for, you know, really NBA players, because you those are really great for year-by-year reviews and not like, you know, college player where it's just like one year, like you know, so it's just it's really tough, right? Uh, you know, because I think he could be great. I just do not know where to put him. Uh Jaden Quentin is a bet, you know, he he's not really a player. I think if you draft him, you're betting on defensive anchor upside, offensive development catching up, and you're accepting a really low current production and an injury uncertainty. Uh, if you fade him, you're pretty much betting that the offense never gets there and he becomes a really limited roll big. Um, so my my model really doesn't like him, and I understand why. There's really no statistical case yet, but I also understand why teams are really in on him. The defensive upside and physical tools are real. The question is really simple. Uh, are you drafting the flashes or the production? For me, that's

Wrap Up And Next Week Tease

SPEAKER_00 42:24

not really a top 10 bet, but I I get why someone could talk themselves into that. All right, guys, that was a lot. All right, I tried, I tried to kind of move, you know, pretty fast. Uh, I apologize if I stumbled on some words. At some point, I'll find a really good balance. Um, but uh next week I'm very excited. Uh I'm gonna have some guests on. Um, these are some fellow uh uh you know guys that that love player scouting and drafting. They have their black belts in the NBA draft. Um, and we're gonna be doing a big board battle. Basically, we're gonna be comparing boards and then discussing and trying to defend our rankings when they're not as good as the other players. Um, so until next time, remember to watch more basketball. I've been doing this for 10 years.

SPEAKER_01 43:12

This is he's two years away from being two years away, and then we'll see.