What a crazy week of basketball it was. From the annual NBA All-Star snub conversation to Jon Calipari’s triumphant return to Rupp Arena.
But then, all of a sudden, it all felt almost meaningless as Luka Doncic was dealt to the Los Angeles Lakers in what I can only describe as the most shocking sporting transaction I can remember in my lifetime. It was so sudden, so unexpected, and I just can’t make any sense of it from the Mavs’ perspective.
I think it even took me longer than usual to write these notes as I was constantly distracted by that trade while I was writing parts of this text, but I made it through to the end! So, let’s dive into my NBA draft notes from last week.
What about Kon?
Duke’s Kon Knueppel was a major pre-season and early-season riser on many draft boards. Many people, myself included, tended to overlook his athletic shortcomings in favour of elite shooting ability, good size, excellent complementary passing, and feel for the game.
All of these things about Knueppel were proven true this year. After some initial struggles, Knueppel is now knocking down 37% of his threes, which he shoots at an excellent volume of 12.5 shots per 100 possessions. Since December 31st, these metrics have gone up to almost 42% on 13.5 shots per 100.
On Saturday, Duke obliterated North Carolina, with the final score of 87-70 failing to truly attest the Blue Devils’ dominance over their arch-rivals. Knueppel had his best scoring game against strong opposition (his previous high-scoring games were against Maine and Miami)—22 points, 6 rebounds, and 5 assists to complement the buckets.
He also had three stocks, but watching Knueppel, I can’t shake off the feeling that his lack of athleticism is problematic on both ends of the floor. He’s neither quick, vertically nor horizontally, and that’s why his stock numbers aren’t great this year.
At the beginning of the season, I saw Knueppel struggle shooting at the rim, and I kind of shrugged it off, believing that it’s mostly variation and it’s going to correct itself out during the course of the season – just like the 3-point shooting did. It generally felt like his process of getting to the basket was good. Knueppel was, and remains, very methodical in pick and rolls. He uses his frame to put people on his back while getting to the basket. Defenses always have to account for the passing threat, as Knueppel has an abundance of options in hitting elite rolling bigs like Khaman Maluach or Cooper Flagg or spaced-out shooters.
However, the upwards rim percentage correction has yet to materialise. On the season, Knueppel is 56.7% on rim attempts with just 2 dunks. Per Synergy, he’s just 26th percentile in rim frequency and 37th percentile in efficiency.
On tape, I feel like his lack of athleticism is a massive hindrance to his rim-scoring. Knueppel has the ability to get into the teeth of the defense but often gets stuck at the last stage, unable to find vertical pop to carry his momentum all the way to the basket and to get good angles on layups.
Unsurprisingly, he had his best game scoring at the rim against North Carolina, a notoriously undersized team that’s physically overmatched at pretty much every position. But faced with length and athleticism, Knueppel often struggles at the rim. This also hurts his free throw rate, which stands at just 25.5%. Drawing more fouls would be massive for Knueppel, considering his excellent shooting touch (47-54, 87% from the line).
I still think that Knueppel, based on his shooting, feel, positional size and age is a worthwhile top20-ish bet. But I think being able to pass a minimum athletic threshold for an NBA player will ultimately be a make-or-break factor for Knueppel.
What about Broome?
By now, Johni Broome has established himself as the number 1 candidate to win National Player of the Year. The Auburn Tigers may still be the best team in the country, and Broome continues to deliver absurd, completely bonkers production basically every time he steps out on the floor.
Having overcome his brief injury problems, Broome is now back to his dominant best, scoring 26 and 20 on LSU and Mississippi State, respectively.
Broome remains the NPOY frontrunner, which automatically makes him intriguing in the NBA draft context, despite him turning 23 next July. Being a five-year college player is never suitable for one’s draft stock, but with Broome, I’ve seen some people mocking him really, really high. Like, top 5 high.
Dominant older college centers are pretty tough evals. With other player archetypes, it’s often a bit easier to project their college production to the next level. Still, with Broome’s archetype, you have to recontextualize a lot of his stuff for his potential NBA role on offense, which is going to be very, very different from what he’s used to at Auburn.
The offensive scale-down that awaits Broome at the next level is significant. For instance, take an extreme example in Zach Edey: last season at Purdue, he was the focal point for the offense on 33.4% usage, getting all the post and paint touches he would ever need. Per Synergy, a whopping 68.3% of his shots came from post-ups, 14.3% from offensive rebounds, and just 5.7% from cuts.
Compared to this season for the Memphis Grizzlies, Edey’s usage drops to just 18.6%, meaning that he’s relegated from the clear-cut 1st option every time he stepped on the floor for Purdue to 4-5th option in the NBA. His post-up touches now make up just 18.7% of his shots, while cuts and shots from off rebounds increase to 22% and 20.3%, respectively. You’ll see something similar with other players like Trayce Jackson-Davis, which I like as Broome’s comp at the next level.
Does Broome have what it takes to handle that level of scale-down and establish himself in the NBA? Well, Broome, unlike Edey, is not 7’4″. But he has outstanding skill and feel for the game, which you can always bet on, and I’d say he’s a better all-around player than Edey was in college. Also, Broome’s BLK % rate may make me reconsider and eventually put him higher up on my board.
Back on the menu
Coming into the season, there were two clear things about Flory Bidunga. One, he presents a fascinating NBA draft case as a freak athlete. Two, he’s going to struggle for playing time in Kansas behind veterans Hunter Dickinson and KJ Adams.
The second part was true for the first two months of the season. Bidunga was indeed playing second fiddle to his more experienced peers. Until January 1st, he played just 31.5% of Kansas’s total minutes.
Since then, Bidunga has played 54% of Kansas’s total minutes, and his production has skyrocketed. He scored a career-best 19 points in a double overtime game against Houston on January 25th. With KJ Adams’s injury, Bill Self was forced into playing Bidunga for some big minutes, and, crucially, he spent a significant chunk of his time on the floor with Dickinson.
Having in mind the conventional basketball wisdom of spacing, a front-court pairing of two non-shooting bigs should be counter-intuitive to efficient offense, but in this case, it’s been the opposite; Bidunga/Dickinson is actually Kansas’s best two-man offensive lineup this season.
Bidunga is at his best playing the four, so the successful Dickinson pairing provides a blueprint for his potential transition to the NBA. Bidunga’s limited on offense, but he’s 99th percentile good at the things he does. His shooting touch is poor, and (this is one of his biggest downsides so far) Bidunga has a below-average free throw rate. But his TS% sits at an incredible 77% because Bidunga and Duke’s Maluach are the best dunkers in the nation. Per Synergy, he ranks 99th percentile in rim frequency and 98th in rim efficiency. Bidunga is an absurd vertical athlete with a 7’2” wingspan and good hands, so he can catch passes and lobs at super high points that are unreachable for most bigs
.
Dickinson is such a nice offensive fit for Bidunga because of his post-gravity. He’s massive and has a valuable combination of touch around the rim and passing ability. He draws players out of the paint and vacates space for Bidunga to attack with his athleticism. He occupies opposing bigs so Bidunga can feast on the offensive glass. Dickinson anchors the defense so Bidunga can utilize his vertical pop to swat shots right and left as a help defender.
Bidunga has fallen out of the most big boards, but now for me, he’s firmly back in the mix; the situation that seemed very unfavourable for him now all of a sudden looks pretty neat.
Yax to the max
I think UAB’s Yaxel Lendeborg is the type of older prospect that you should be drafting in the late 1st/early 2nd round – a 6’9” wing with superb functional athleticism, 11.3 BPM, and a high feel for the game.
Playing in AAC, he obviously isn’t getting the attention of high-end NBA draft prospects, but Lendeborg has been putting together quite a season so far. At Tulsa, Lendeborg had his best game of the season, scoring 28 points, grabbing 13 rebounds and dishing out 6 assists.
It’s one of the best things about Lendeborg—the dude is just a stat sheet stuffer who finds multiple ways to affect the game. One of my favourites is Lendeborg’s ability to create second chances with his offensive rebounding, as he’s probably one of college basketball’s best wing rebounders. Per Synergy, he ranks in the 94th percentile in efficiency, scoring from offensive rebounds, and the 65th percentile in frequency.
Playing in a non-top-tier NCAA conference, Lendeborg often looks like a man amongst boys with his 6’9″, 240 lb frame. He has great stocks (2.5% STL and 5.1% BLK) and is a great help defender. Against Tulsa, I came away super impressed with how he was able to make defensive plays in transition and track the offensive player to the basket.
Passing and handle improvement (13.6% -> 24.7% AST from last year) is an obvious ceiling raiser for Lendeborg.
My biggest question concerning his translatability is how Lendeborg’s offensive game will translate to the next level. He’s not a great shooter – at the beginning of the Tulsa game, Lendeborg took an unusually high volume of threes because opponents were clearly willing to sag off from him. Per Synergy, his biggest source of shots this season have been spot-ups and post-ups, though he’s not great at either of those (53rd and 52nd percentile, respectively).
Lendeborg’s best offense comes from offensive rebounds and transition, two plays that usually don’t generate a lot of gravity. Also, his play against good competition has been somewhat concerning since transferring up from junior college, as Lendeborg’s BPM dropped significantly playing t100 competition in both of his D1 seasons.
The Center Hub 
Leave a comment