2026 NBA draft thread

[DanSchwartzgan]

 
FWIW, Flemings is in this same range in terms of WS/40 and BPM, but has a much higher AST %.  Acuff is lower (as you'd expect, his D numbers hurt his overall advanced metrics).  Similar for Philon.  103 year old Yaxel Lendeborg has fantastic numbers...but, he's 103 and in his second senior season (literally a man among boys).  

Player 1 is Burries and Player 2 is Wagler.  Surprising that Burries has the higher TS%.  It was a little surprising to me that so many of their numbers were so similar.

Just for fun, here is the chart with Flemings added:

               Burries        Wagler         Flemings
PER          22.2              24.1             23.6
TS%         .625             .597             .563
TRB %       8.9               8.4               7.3
AST %      14.5              23.3             32.6
STL %       2.8               1.7                3.0
TOV %      10.2              10.5             11.1
USG %      23.2              25.0             26.0
OWS          3.7               5.4                3.8
DWS          2.7               1.7                2.8
WS            6.4               7.0                6.6
WS/40        .226             .234             .225
OBPM         6.2               8.9                6.6
DBPM         5.8               3.5                6.0
BPM           12.0             12.4              12.6

[Winter]

I am curious at why so many mock drafts generally have Wagler 4-5 slots higher in the draft than Burries. It really feels like his Illinois team features him a little more that AZ features Burries... and maybe that's it. It's hard to imagine though that "USG" alone could separate players that much. Wagler's playmaking skills get high marks, but Illinois needs playmaking from him. AZ, on the other hand, doesn't need Burries as a playmaker as much. They need his scoring. At the end of the day, it just doesn't feel those two should be separated that much.

Nate Ament has drifted downward a bit. But I'm not sure he helped himself this season in any particular way. Flemings too although I'm not sure that's because of any new weakness in his play. It just feels more like Acuff and Wagler got more buzz.

[mvossman]

I think the desire to play fast is something we should keep in mind as we think through prospects...draft and free agency.  I think the low turnovers also help Wagler's cause to be a Mav priority if he's available.  Now that I'm watching him more, I don't think his D is as bad as I might have feared based on his small frame.  The NBA will be different and fighting through screens will be a problem, but he at least works at it.

The thing that gives me the most pause about Wagler is watching him try to navigate hard hedges on PnR plays.  He never turns the corner on anyone.  This will limit his usefulness as a main ball-handler at the next level.  I'm not sure what the counter will be, but it shows his limited athleticism in a way that detracts some from how high I'd rate him.  Still high, but not 5th/6th pick high like some now have him.  

Here are two Advanced Stat lines for guys available in this range that I found interesting (knowing some don't give a rat's a$$ about this).  The WS/40 and BPM's are very similar for these players, but they get in different ways.  One is more heavily skewed toward O and the other is more balanced between O and D:

              Player 1       Player 2
PER          22.2              24.1
TS%         .625             .597
TRB %       8.9               8.4
AST %      14.5              23.3
STL %       2.8               1.7
TOV %      10.2              10.5
USG %      23.2              25.0
OWS          3.7               5.4
DWS          2.7               1.7
WS            6.4               7.0
WS/40        .226             .234
OBPM         6.2               8.9
DBPM         5.8               3.5  
BPM           12.0             12.4

FWIW, Flemings is in this same range in terms of WS/40 and BPM, but has a much higher AST %.  Acuff is lower (as you'd expect, his D numbers hurt his overall advanced metrics).  Similar for Philon.  103 year old Yaxel Lendeborg has fantastic numbers...but, he's 103 and in his second senior season (literally a man among boys).  

Player 1 is Burries and Player 2 is Wagler.  Surprising that Burries has the higher TS%.  It was a little surprising to me that so many of their numbers were so similar.

I think it gets even more interesting when you put some context around these numbers.

I wonder if Burries playing off ball contributes to his higher TS%?  Wagler is on the ball a lot.

Flemings team is not as good offensively as Arizona or Illinois.  I wonder how much that impacts his offensive numbers?

Philon is an interesting case study.  If he had come out after his freshman year, a big part of his draw was his defense.  But in his sophomore year he took over the offense, had a massive usage rate, and his defense suffered significantly.  When looking at these guys defense, I think there needs to be some discounting depending on how much offensive responsibility they have (maybe Acuff is not quite as bad as he seems?).  The outlier here is Flemings, who has a fairly heavy offensive responsibility and yet still has the best defensive numbers (although how much of that is due to Sampson priorities?).

For me, I still have Wagler/Acuff/Flemings a notch above Burries/Philon due to their combination of youth/upside and offensive responsibility.  If Mavs are picking 7, I'm probably going to go for which ever one of those three guys is left.  If the Mavs are picking later and those guys are all gone then its going to be an interesting choice between Burries and Philon.

[mvossman]

I am curious at why so many mock drafts generally have Wagler 4-5 slots higher in the draft than Burries. It really feels like his Illinois team features him a little more that AZ features Burries... and maybe that's it. It's hard to imagine though that "USG" alone could separate players that much. Wagler's playmaking skills get high marks, but Illinois needs playmaking from him. AZ, on the other hand, doesn't need Burries as a playmaker as much. They need his scoring. At the end of the day, it just doesn't feel those two should be separated that much.

Nate Ament has drifted downward a bit. But I'm not sure he helped himself this season in any particular way. Flemings too although I'm not sure that's because of any new weakness in his play. It just feels more like Acuff and Wagler got more buzz.

I think its a couple of things.  Wagler's size makes it easier to fit him into a roster at either the 1 or the 2 (and he has played both positions at a high level in college).  Burries is undersized for a shooting guard and he has much less sample to suggest he can be a PG at the next level.  My guess is Burries is also taking a hit because he is nearly a year and half older than Wagler.

[Chicagojk]

Who knows how they look in 3-4 years, but I think Wagler would struggle as your point guard/#1 creator.  I think he is best suited in a role, playing with two other creators.   He is going to be best served playing with other good shooters too.   He just makes smart plays.  Hits open shots.  Can defend pretty well.  limits mistakes.   He would fit in really well with Cooper and Kyrie.

[Winter]

Who knows how they look in 3-4 years, but I think Wagler would struggle as your point guard/#1 creator.  I think he is best suited in a role, playing with two other creators.   He is going to be best served playing with other good shooters too.   He just makes smart plays.  Hits open shots.  Can defend pretty well.  limits mistakes.   He would fit in really well with Cooper and Kyrie.

To dovetail those two replies above, the same thing occurred to me. I'm just not sure Wagler is your primary playmaker on a team. However, he very well could be a fit with Cooper and Kyrie as posted above.

[Chicagojk]

I think it gets even more interesting when you put some context around these numbers.

I wonder if Burries playing off ball contributes to his higher TS%?  Wagler is on the ball a lot.

Flemings team is not as good offensively as Arizona or Illinois.  I wonder how much that impacts his offensive numbers?

Philon is an interesting case study.  If he had come out after his freshman year, a big part of his draw was his defense.  But in his sophomore year he took over the offense, had a massive usage rate, and his defense suffered significantly.  When looking at these guys defense, I think there needs to be some discounting depending on how much offensive responsibility they have (maybe Acuff is not quite as bad as he seems?).  The outlier here is Flemings, who has a fairly heavy offensive responsibility and yet still has the best defensive numbers (although how much of that is due to Sampson priorities?).

For me, I still have Wagler/Acuff/Flemings a notch above Burries/Philon due to their combination of youth/upside and offensive responsibility.  If Mavs are picking 7, I'm probably going to go for which ever one of those three guys is left.  If the Mavs are picking later and those guys are all gone then it’s  am going to be an interesting choice between Burries and Philon.

I am pretty sure I will,have Flemings, Wagler and Acuff solidly in tier 3.  Probably evenly rated.  Similar to the top three and probably drafted by team preference.

I don’t think I will move any up to tier 2.  I only have one player in this tier.  I will probably have 1-3 more in tier 3.  Not sure who yet.

[mvossman]

I am pretty sure I will,have Flemings, Wagler and Acuff solidly in tier 3.  Probably evenly rated.  Similar to the top three and probably drafted by team preference.

I don’t think I will move any up to tier 2.  I only have one player in this tier.  I will probably have 1-3 more in tier 3.  Not sure who yet.

Who is your tier two guy?  The typical answer would be Wilson, but there are a lot of folks on this board who would have Boozer or Peterson there.

[Winter]

I am pretty sure I will,have Flemings, Wagler and Acuff solidly in tier 3.  Probably evenly rated.  Similar to the top three and probably drafted by team preference.

I don’t think I will move any up to tier 2.  I only have one player in this tier.  I will probably have 1-3 more in tier 3.  Not sure who yet.

I get the age thing, but Lendeborg in any other draft is a top 10 draft pick.

[Chicagojk]

Who is your tier two guy?  The typical answer would be Wilson, but there are a lot of folks on this board who would have Boozer or Peterson there.

Yes Wilson.  If people want to have him higher, that is fine.

I will probably have AJ 1.   Peterson 2 (I understand the doubt there and there is some risk, but as of now that is my ranking).   I will have Boozer 3 despite him being my favorite player in the draft.   

Wilson # 4.

I was leaning towards Fleming at 5, but I think Wagler and Acuff may just be a team preference and that will change depending on the team.   I could see all three being real tough for the Mavs to pick of the three.

[Chicagojk]

I get the age thing, but Lendeborg in any other draft is a top 10 draft pick.

He is certainly making a strong case.   I think he probably ends up just outside the top ten but late lottery.   Although if Ament or Peat don't make a strong case and the lack of quality wings in the top 10 with all the guards, I could see some team who is desperate for a wing look for a more ready made player.

[Winter]

He is certainly making a strong case.   I think he probably ends up just outside the top ten but late lottery.   Although if Ament or Peat don't make a strong case and the lack of quality wings in the top 10 with all the guards, I could see some team who is desperate for a wing look for a more ready made player.

Watching Ament playing against Lendeborg now.

Ament 7 points. He's 2 of 11. 6 rebs

Lendeborg has 27 points, 10-19, 7 rebs (3 offensive rebounds), and 4 assists.

Tennessee is losing by 31 points with 4 minutes to go.

Michigan has scored over 90 points in each of their four tournament games.

[Smitty]

Watching Ament playing against Lendeborg now.

Ament 7 points. He's 2 of 11. 6 rebs

Lendeborg has 27 points, 10-19, 7 rebs (3 offensive rebounds), and 4 assists.

Tennessee is losing by 31 points with 4 minutes to go.

Michigan has scored over 90 points in each of their four tournament games.

One is 19 and the other is 24…

[Winter]

One is 19 and the other is 24…

So do you think Ament's upside is going to overtake Lendeborg?

[DanSchwartzgan]

Watching Ament playing against Lendeborg now.

Ament 7 points. He's 2 of 11. 6 rebs

Lendeborg has 27 points, 10-19, 7 rebs (3 offensive rebounds), and 4 assists.

Tennessee is losing by 31 points with 4 minutes to go.

Michigan has scored over 90 points in each of their four tournament games.

This is what I’m talking about concerning the hit rate for picks in the 7/8 range.  With Lendeborg, what you see is what you get.  With Ament, what you see is ignored because if you squint hard enough you can see something better than Lendeborg 4-5 years from now.  As to where Lendeborg goes, all of the teams that might take an older player…teams with playoff expectations…all currently fall outside the top 10.  So, he probably does too.

[Smitty]

So do you think Ament's upside is going to overtake Lendeborg?

Very possible. He was a highly ranked guy for a reason. Hard to project any of these prospects with high confidence, but the upside is there. Who Ament is today and who he’ll be in 4-5 years are probably vastly different is all. Lendeborg is a grown man playing against kids.

[Winter]

This is what I’m talking about concerning the hit rate for picks in the 7/8 range.  With Lendeborg, what you see is what you get.  With Ament, what you see is ignored because if you squint hard enough you can see something better than Lendeborg 4-5 years from now.  As to where Lendeborg goes, all of the teams that might take an older player…teams with playoff expectations…all currently fall outside the top 10.  So, he probably does too.

Most teams with playoff expectations aren't currently in the lottery, but there probably are a couple of teams there that would fit for Lendeborg.

I can't really "squint hard enough" to like Ament in the top 10.

[F Gump]

I am curious at why so many mock drafts generally have Wagler 4-5 slots higher in the draft than Burries. It really feels like his Illinois team features him a little more that AZ features Burries... and maybe that's it. It's hard to imagine though that "USG" alone could separate players that much. Wagler's playmaking skills get high marks, but Illinois needs playmaking from him. AZ, on the other hand, doesn't need Burries as a playmaker as much. They need his scoring. At the end of the day, it just doesn't feel those two should be separated that much.

IMO Burries is lower rated because he's borderline as a PG (he's probably either a combo, or simply an undersized SG). The excuse that AZ is using someone else as a playmaker isn't very satisfying to me - every team always needs all the playmaking they can get, regardless of who is playing where, and when I watch, Burries doesn't really play like he's a guy who will make plays for others all that much. If you assume he can be a PG at the next level, you would think he would have some games where he's showing such skills, and they aren't there.

Add in the fact that Burries is a year older, and it's not surprising to me to see him somewhat lower in the list.

[Chicagojk]

Sarr's defense is really good.   Like Arizona's Kharch their best games are ahead of them.   Defense will get them on the court early in their careers and thus give them time to get their offensive games up to par.   It will be real interesting to see if either test the waters.   Probably both late first types.   Both will be very high on my wish list.

[vfromlmf]

Cam Boozer does so many things well but he’s had his shot blocked FIVE TIMES in the first 21 minutes of this game. It’s the only thing that bothers me about his game.