2026 NBA Draft: Duke's Cameron Boozer leads my list of Top 15 prospects

Atlantic76ersCelticsKnicksNetsRaptorsCentralBucksBullsCavaliersPacersPistonsSoutheastHawksHeatHornetsMagicWizardsSouthwestGrizzliesMavericksPelicansRocketsSpursNorthwestJazzNuggetsThunderTimberwolvesTrail BlazersPacificClippersKingsLakersSunsWarriorsScores & ScheduleStandingsThe Bounce NewsletterNBA DraftPodcastsFantasyNBA OddsNBA PicksLatest Mock DraftWhat Makes Up Championship DNA?Player Poll: Who is the MVP?Player Poll: Who Will Win Title?2026 NBA For the second year in a row, a Duke standout forward sits atop John Hollinger's draft prospects list. This time, it's Cameron Boozer. Patrick Smith / Getty Images Share articleCongratulations, tankers. You’ve made it. A loaded NBA Draft awaits the league’s worst teams from 2025-26, and the good news for them is that it may not matter much what happens in the actual lottery. While teams would of course rather pick first than, say, eighth, this is as “flat” a talent distribution at the top of the draft as I can remember. The six teams that tanked most brazenly at the end of the season are all basically assured of getting a high-upside one-and-done. While the depth of the group is loaded, there isn’t a singular LeBron or Wemby at the top. In fact, my No. 1 choice deviates from consensus, and four players can make a credible claim to warrant being the top selection. Beyond those four, an almost overwhelming class of point guards makes for a difficult game of splitting hairs. Before we get into the fun part, let me note a couple of ways I’ve changed this board from how I did it the past few years. First of all, longtime readers will note that I usually try to do a Top 20 heading into the draft lottery, with maybe a couple of sleepers at the end. That no longer seems realistic given the uncertainty of so many players remaining in the draft. Virtually every player I had in consideration for spots No. 16 through No. 20 is still a threat to return to school for a name, image and likeness bag. As recently as two years ago, anybody with a first-round projection was gonzo. I’ve limited myself to 15 players this year, but don’t let that be a reflection on the draft’s quality. If every player who submitted his name for the draft ends up staying, I’m going to have a board of 30 first-rounders whom I really like. That’s the case even though NIL has once again given us a “U-shaped” draft by age; if you do a bar chart, you’ll get a lot of freshmen, a lot of seniors and virtually nobody in between. With top sophomores and juniors such as Florida’s Thomas Haugh and Alex Condon, Arizona’s Motiejus Krivas, Wake Forest’s Juke Harris and Duke’s Patrick Ngongba pulling out, I count only 12 draftable players from the sophomore and junior classes. Twelve! And even of that small set, several more seem likely to bail before draft day. These guys used to be half the draft, and their absence has cratered the depth of the second round. Finally, one area where I’ve had to change my philosophy is on centers. A review of my past hits and misses reveals that I’ve been entirely too pessimistic on the idea of drafting centers; the league has also recently shifted back toward lineups that feature multiple bigs at the same time, so the position isn’t facing a minutes crunch and may even have some genuine scarcity at the moment. Big wings remain the most valuable draft commodity, but I’ve realized I need to be much higher on drafting centers. My ratings this year reflect that shift. Now, get your popcorn. Here’s my Top 15 board: !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("[id='datawrapper-chart-naXFv']");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r Similar to Cooper Flagg a year earlier, Boozer both destroyed college basketball and, at 18 years old, is the youngest college prospect in the draft. That he isn’t obviously the No. 1 pick at this point is a tell on the strength of this class, but I also wonder if everyone is overthinking things a bit. Yes, some weaknesses jump out when you watch Boozer. He struggles to elevate and finish against length around the rim, something that stood out when Virginia’s Ugonna Onyenso repeatedly blocked his shot in the ACC championship game. Yes, Boozer’s ability as a rim protector is suspect, to say the least, with a minuscule 0.9 percent block rate in conference games. Finally, at 6 feet 9 and 250 pounds, he’s undersized for a center but may not have the mobility to play power forward. The reason you take him No. 1 anyway is that Boozer was basically “college basketball Nikola Jokić” last season. He’s a huge, wide big man who nonetheless can handle on the perimeter and shoot 3s (39.1 percent from distance, 78.9 percent from the line). Duke ran inverted pick-and-rolls for him last season, where he was picking out 3-point shooters on the weak side and flicking one-handed crosscourt passes. As a rule, teenage centers do not do this, and when they do, they turn out to be pretty special. That, basically, is my elevator pitch for Boozer as the top pick: Don’t worry about the defense, because the offense is going to be ridiculous. Pairing him with a mobile shot-blocker will be important, but Boozer’s resume is overwhelming. I’ll throw in a few other Boozer nuggets while I’m here. First of all, his feel at the defensive end is pretty strong too; he averaged 2.8 steals per 100 possessions in conference play, which a lot of first-round guards didn’t do. But let’s get back to that passing, because that to me is the ultimate reason to take him. I have a basic draft theory that I call the Marc Gasol Rule: Bigs who can pass, figure it out. Gasol was thought to be so vulnerable on defense that the Grizzlies drafted Hasheem Thabeet to play next to him. Gasol ended up winning a Defensive Player of the Year trophy. So much of big-man defense is reading what’s happening and figuring out position and angles. That’s why a lot of “feel” bigs like Gasol (or Jokić!) end up being solid-to-good defenders even with meh tools. Boozer is only 6-9, so he’s operating with a different ceiling, and ultimately, he may play a lot at power forward. But he showed enough mobility that I don’t think he’d be a disaster at that spot defensively, and he’d have massive advantages at the other end if matched up that way. In the end, it’s hard not to see a Kevin Love-type impact as a median outcome for Boozer, but he was so dominant at such a young age that there may be upside for more. Dybantsa is obviously a phenomenal scorer, averaging a jaw-dropping 39.4 points per 100 possessions in Big 12 games, mostly on self-created shots. He shot 56.8 percent on 2s, even though a lot of them were contested pull-ups, and while he only shot 33.1 percent from 3, I trust his shot a lot more than that. Watching him shoot before games, you see an easy, clean release, and he gets great elevation on it; the NBA level should likely afford him some easier catch-and-shoots to improve that percentage. In particular, Dybantsa is hell on wheels in transition, pushing his own rebounds upcourt and then taking giant strides into his finishes. He’s never passing once he gets a head of steam, but if you were an automatic bucket like this, you wouldn’t either. If you’re looking for warts, he has a high handle that can get away from him a little bit, and you worry about NBA defenders picking his dribble when it’s out that high and away from him. Additionally, Dybantsa had trouble reading defenders and picking out open teammates and relied a bit too much on tough 2s, although this got better as the season went on. I went back and looked historically at the production of other similarly highly drafted big forwards, and Dybantsa’s freshman year is a similar story: A lot of these guys don’t actually have overwhelming stats as far as impressing draft models and have somewhat high turnover rates and underwhelming 2-point shooting stats, but they score at a high rate and have at least halfway-decent assist rates. If you look at Dybantsa’s offensive stats from his one-and-done year, they basically fit right in next to the likes of Jayson Tatum, Brandon Ingram, RJ Barrett, Paolo Banchero, Jaylen Brown and Cade Cunningham. I’d say that’s good company. Where I worry more about Dybantsa is actually at the other end. His rates of rebounds, steals and blocks are all unusually low for a prospect of his type; of the players I listed above, Dybantsa would be a distant last in rebounds and blocks and near the bottom in steals. Defensively, he was pretty good one-on-one because he weaponizes his length, keeping his hands high and using them to deter shooters while allowing enough cushion to cut off a drive. Sometimes this resulted in him letting guys walk into a jumper, but more often than not, it was effective. The dearth of rebounds and defensive events relates more to his awareness and instincts off the ball and in the run of play; his feel for the game still has a ways to go. That is likely somewhat a result of the game being so easy for him to date; he can just jump over everybody and score. When NBA defenses make it harder for him to do that, he’ll need to develop those other faculties or risk turning into an empty-calorie scorer. Nevertheless, this history of huge forwards who can score like this is extremely positive, and Dybantsa has a solid case to be the first pick. Even in the worst-case scenario, it’s hard to imagine him not scoring 20 a game for years. A fair amount of projection has to go into this pick. Wilson has a very thin frame, can’t shoot from distance and has sequences on defense that will make you shake your head. Even with that, his production as a freshman was phenomenal. Let’s start here: He constantly gets to the rim, whether as the initiator or rolling to the cup as a screener. Wilson took 19.3 2-point baskets per 100 possessions in ACC play and made 64.5 percent of them. In other words, he was shooting inside the arc nearly as often as Dybantsa or Kingston Flemings (below), but he was converting at an awesome rate. Included in those were mouth-watering transition sequences where he dunked on people’s heads. He loves to push rebounds and start trouble himself, although his dribble can get away from him. As a passer, he was pretty effective as a 6-10 forward, even though he wasn’t wowing you with his reads. It’s just an easy game for him at his size and with the advantages he creates. The other half of that 2-point percentage is Wilson’s surprising lower-body strength. Despite his thin frame, he’s comfortable powering up in the paint and taking a hit and expertly spins off contact and takes long strides to finish, in a way that is slightly reminiscent of Giannis Antetokounmpo. Now, for the bad news: Defensively, Wilson has great tools and made disruptive plays at a high rate (5.4 “stocks” per 100 possessions, 2.8 of which were steals — an amazing rate for a player of this size). However, he was often too casual at that end and was beaten on the perimeter more than you’d expect or want. And then there’s the shooting. Wilson only made seven 3-pointers all season and shot 71.3 percent from the line. While Wilson is talented enough to survive in the NBA without a jump shot, selecting him this highly prices in the idea that his 3 will eventually get to a respectable level. Given that his form doesn’t seem broken, I don’t think that’s a crazy bet. “Huge forward who can handle the ball and move” is a pretty difficult archetype to find, and players like that can hit big even without being knockdown shooters (witness Scottie Barnes, Franz Wagner and Pascal Siakam, for example). Wilson’s game can go a lot of directions from here, and while the shooting gives him a lower floor than perhaps anyone in the top eight, he also has a crazy-high ceiling. Peterson came into the year as the No. 1 player on most draft boards, but his injury-riddled season at Kansas left a lot of questions. In particular, the minutes he played didn’t really showcase him as a lead creator despite a high scoring rate. His stat line is more of an elite 3-and-D guy, which obviously still has value, but that would be a slightly disappointing outcome this high in the draft. The most notable stat for Peterson is 9.9 field goal attempts for every assist in Big 12 Conference play, which isn’t quite in Cam Thomas territory but definitely isn’t good for a guard prospect. You can only blame him playing off-ball for some of that; most of the other elite wing prospects from recent years averaged between 4.0 and 7.0 shots per assist. Even Dybantsa, who wasn’t exactly nicknamed the Human Assist, was at 5.0. Peterson’s injuries and limited minutes somewhat obscured how much he was scoring, though; in conference games, he averaged 40.2 points per 100 possessions, more even than Dybantsa. That’s partly because when he went to the rim in the half court, he was shooting every time; in transition, oddly, he threw some tremendous alley-oops. Peterson, alas, wasn’t quite as efficient as he could have been on those shots; he lacked explosion at the rim, and his left hand frequently left him down as a finisher. Peterson’s defense grades out as a major plus, especially off the ball. He zips into passing lanes for steals (2.8 swipes per 100 in Big 12 play), blocked 3-pointers and generally was a pest. I’ve also buried the lede a bit: Peterson shot 38.2 percent from 3 on huge volume and 82.6 percent from the line. Given that 3-point volume and free-throw shooting are the two best predictors of pro 3-point success, he has as good a shooting projection as any player in this draft. Peterson will have to prove he’s a go-to offensive option as opposed to a second-side finisher; if not, he still has a ton of value, but it would take his ceiling to a different place than a top-three guy. Still, somebody who shapes up as “a more athletic Keaton Wagler” is still a heck of a player to have. !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("[id='datawrapper-chart-hkAq4']");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r We have a great group of point guards this year; I will have a first-round grade on at least eight of them. Beyond that, splitting hairs among them is tough. However, I like Flemings the best of the group because of his turbo-boosted quickness and athleticism, which he uses to impact the game at both ends of the floor. Flemings is especially potent with the ball in his right hand, getting into pick-and-rolls with pace and zipping one-handed crosscourt passes while going full speed. He also gets great elevation on his pull-ups, although he probably relies on that shot too much. One reason Flemings is so pull-up heavy is that he’s a poor finisher at the cup; he’ll need to refine his steps and craft around the rim as a pro. That’s a big reason he shot only 47.3 percent on 2s in Big 12 play and didn’t draw fouls at a high rate. The other swing skill for him, however, is his shooting. Flemings’ form is not ideal – it comes out a bit flat and has some sidespin – and he didn’t shoot many 3s. On the other hand, he also shot 84.5 percent from the line in his one season. Defensively, I like Flemings better off the ball than on it. He rockets from nowhere on the weak side to get steals and is great at turning mistakes into quick transitions. In isolation, however, he just wasn’t all that special. Still, the open spaces of the NBA should help him leverage his explosiveness and perhaps simplify some of his finishing challenges. Flemings profiles as a Day 1 starting point guard with All-Star upside. Wagler has a skinny frame, near-zero explosiveness and ran maybe two fast breaks the entire season. Yet he tormented college defenses in the half court with his deep shooting range, ability to get into his shot off the dribble and craft in beating switches with crossovers and decel Euro steps at the cup. He’s unflappable on the ball, rarely getting sped up, and won’t take a bad shot. While he has deep shooting range, he wasn’t quite as elite overall as highlights make it seem, hitting 39.7 percent from 3 and 79.6 percent from the line. Wagler partly offset that by drawing fouls at a shocking rate for somebody with his build. The system at Illinois definitely benefited Wagler, with a surfeit of pick-and-pop bigs surrounding him, and I am particularly interested to see him play at NBA speed after walking the ball up the court every play for the Illini. Forget getting sped up by opponents; he’s going to be sped up by the eight-second rule. Wagler also only shot 47.1 percent on 2s in Big Ten play and didn’t have the sterling assist rate of Flemings or Darius Acuff Jr. (below), and his low steal rate stands out (in a bad way) for a guard prospect, although he did use his length to block jump shots on several occasions. One other thing I like about Wagler is that he has multiple pathways to success; he is such a good shooter that he can fill an off-ball role pretty easily if being the main engine is too much for him. In that sense, he has a high degree of safety. Offensively, Acuff showed more than the other two point guards in his lone college season, burning defenses with deep shooting range and a strong pull-up game while also proving himself a deft passer. (He led the SEC in both points and assists.) In addition to his half-court pick-and-roll game, he’s great at throwing alley-oops in transition. However, questions remain as to how that scales to the NBA game. Acuff needs to be a high-usage, high-volume offensive engine because his defense is awful. Both his steal and rebound rates are in red-flag territory for a guard prospect, although he did at least block shots with some frequency. He’s not as small as, say, Trae Young, but the defensive projection might not be a whole lot better. Additionally, I’ll note that steals are usually a “feel” indicator for offensive development; even Young had a much higher steal rate as a collegian than Acuff. Offensively, Acuff was a magician in Arkansas’ SEC tournament run, but the full-season tape had a few warts if you look close enough – he’s very right-handed in the open court and got his dribble picked in transition more than you’d expect. Still, Acuff grades out as an offensive engine with Damian Lillard-esque upside. If he’s merely “good” offensively, though, his defense may limit his overall value case. When a freshman guard shoots 57.1 percent on 2s in the Big 12, you take notice. When he does it while shooting 39.1 percent from 3, rebounding like a power forward and playing solid defense for one of the best teams in the country … yeah, that’s elite stuff. Burries would be a top-five pick on my board in a lot of years, but the strength of this year’s class pushes him to eighth. Burries doesn’t quite profile as a lead guard, but he can shoot and get to the cup, especially in transition. He loves taking his own rebounds and pushing them down the court, and he loves shooting pull-up 3s at the end of those forays. His finishing can be very right-handed, but he attacks from either side on his push. Oddly, Burries’ overall 3-point volume was pretty low in an Arizona system that was basically allergic to 3-pointers (Arizona was 363rd out of 365 Division I schools in 3-point attempt frequency). However, he shot 80.5 percent from the line, and his stroke looked pure when I watched him pregame the two times I saw Arizona in person. Defensively, Burries was solid on the ball but nothing special; his impact was felt more as a pest who nabbed 2.8 steals per 100 in Big 12 play. He also has a very solid frame that should insulate him against NBA physicality and, as noted above, punches above his height on the glass. !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("[id='datawrapper-chart-TgCyu']");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r An athletic forward whose career trajectory likely will land somewhere between James Johnson and Jalen Johnson, Lendeborg is a draft anomaly as an ancient 23-year-old who nonetheless was so good that he should be a top-10 pick. Lendeborg was arguably the best player in college basketball while leading Michigan to a national title, and a lot of what he did best should translate right away. He is a Day 1 defensive stopper who likely will be assigned to guard some of the best players in the league immediately. He can defend one through five and, when he’s not starting, might have a lot of use as a junk-ball center with second units. Lendeborg is a fantastic rebounder who pushes his own rebounds in transition and creates havoc at the other end because of it. He makes good passes on the move and can handle the ball, and if you don’t stop him, he’s going to put you on a poster. Just check out his annihilation dunk against Saint Louis in the second round of the NCAA Tournament if you don’t believe me; he should get drafted on that play alone. Lendeborg’s biggest weakness is an iffy 3-point shot and a limited one-on-one game in the half court, but he is so good in so many other areas that he will help a team even if he shoots 30 percent from 3. He might be quite a bit better, actually; he improved to 37.2 percent from 3 last season on fairly significant volume and made 80.5 percent from the line. His age limits his upside somewhat, but Lendeborg is a late bloomer who is still coming into his game. Finding a bigger player who can dribble, pass and defend in space is one of the most challenging areas of team-building; Lendeborg checks every box. Mara came to UCLA as a freshman in 2023 with a lot of buzz but failed to gain much immediate traction, with his first name accurately reflecting how long it took him to change ends. He’s come a long way since then, literally playing a huge role in Michigan’s run to the national title. Mara’s size makes him a useful rim-runner, but he also maximizes his offensive impact with great short-range touch on hook shots and floaters. He has a nice feel for passing out of the block as well and knows how to feel pressure on his back and spin away from it to get to this shot. Mara is pretty slow on the perimeter and likely will be much more comfortable in drop coverage but commands the lane and posted a 12.0 percent block rate without being particularly foul-prone. His other big issue is shooting; he has touch, but his form from the perimeter is still a work in progress. Mara shot 56.4 percent from the line last season and 58.5 percent for his college career. Mara is the best “true” center in this draft, by a mile (as opposed to smaller, hybrid bigs like Boozer or Mara’s Michigan teammate Morez Johnson). If a team has a need for a center that it wants to fill on a controlled salary for the next four years, its options are pretty much Mara and Mara. !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("[id='datawrapper-chart-SLS2w']");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r A true wing at 6-10 who can handle the ball and shoot, Ament fits the most desired skill archetype, which pushes his status ahead of a few other one-and-dones who arguably had better college seasons. He also didn’t get to show his best at the scout-packed conference tournaments and NCAA rounds, because he was gutting his way through a late-season ankle sprain. The biggest impact of Ament’s size was on the heaps of fouls he drew. Despite a thin frame and limited explosion he averaged 14.3 free-throw attempts per 100 possessions in conference games, the most of any prospect in this year’s draft cycle. He likes to get into slow Euro steps around the basket, and if he doesn’t draw a foul, he struggles to finish (just 44.9 percent on 2s in SEC games – yikes!). But he also didn’t get much help from Tennessee’s constipated spacing that usually had two non-shooting bigs clogging the paint on his drives. Improving his left hand around the basket would also help. As a shooter, Ament has good footwork for his size catching on the move and shooting but didn’t take a huge volume of 3s and made 33.3 percent for the season and 79.0 percent from the line. Defensively, the story is similar; he had low rates of blocks and steals and mostly let his length do the work, although he held up on the glass (11.6 percent rebound rate in conference games). As an Atlantan, I can’t help but see a lot of Zaccharie Risacher in Ament’s game; the key difference is that Ament has a lot more on-ball juice for self-creating shots. I had Risacher slotted 13th in the 2024 draft and see Ament similarly, although I’m a bit rosier on Ament — a late lottery pick with plus starter upside if his outside shooting develops. I’m a big fan of drafting big wings and forwards since they’re generally the most difficult commodity to find in free agency or trades. As I’ve often said, overseas league stats are a much better tell on a player’s NBA ability than a lot of people seem to think. That Lopez was a good player in a halfway decent league as a teenager is a positive signal. Lopez’s stats from the Australian NBL aren’t overwhelming, but they look a lot better once you factor in that he only turned 19 a month ago. The standout features are that he shot 58.1 percent on 2s and averaged over three “stocks” (steals + blocks) per 36 minutes, roughly evenly split. He also had a solid 13.1 percent rebound rate in a physical league. At this point, he relies a lot on power and athleticism and is still refining his skill level, although he does have a nice midrange stepback he can get to when he has an advantage in the paint. He shot 32.2 percent from 3 and 73.9 percent from the line; the shot is still a work in progress, but he’s on a trajectory to become reasonably threatening from distance. Compared to Ament above, he’s better finishing in the paint right now but not quite as far along as a shooter. Brown had top-five buzz entering the season, but a back injury and some inconsistent play dampened the enthusiasm for him a bit. Team medical staffs will need to get a read on his back at the combine, but assuming it’s not a deal-breaker, he’s still clearly a lottery talent. (I also talked to Brown about his prospects in January.) Brown played as an on-ball guard at Louisville but was wracked by a massive turnover rate. However, much like Peterson above, I think he has a backstop as a strong 3-and-D guy. While his defense wasn’t consistent, the tape showed he has a really good first slide that consistently cut off an opponent’s first move, and he’s good in passing lanes. Offensively, he has a very good left hand around the rim, but his other game inside the paint needs work; in addition to the massive turnover rate, he only shot 47.4 percent on 2s in ACC play. However, the shooting piece is perhaps getting underrated. Brown made 38.1 percent from 3 on nearly the highest 3-point volume of any player in this draft cycle, and he shot 82.2 percent from the line. Watching his shooting form makes it clear that wasn’t a fluke; this guy can stroke it. That piece of his game figures to be a weapon regardless of whether he can be a high-usage on-ball player at the next level. !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("[id='datawrapper-chart-gS5Z5']");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r I’m not sure he’s really going to measure 6-8 at the combine, but Swain checks the box for small forward size and skill that is so hard to find in the NBA. I’ve had my eyes on him since his freshman year at Xavier, and he’s finally developed enough of a perimeter threat to make a go of it at the next level. Swain is a good athlete who can get downhill and create shots at the rim for himself and others; he shot 60.2 percent on 2s in SEC play, even as he left money on the table at times with some wild finishes that could use further refinement. He’s also a beast on the glass who posted a 13.6 percent rebound rate and a constant threat as an off-ball ballhawk who swiped an impressive 3.0 steals per 100 possessions in league play. The most notable development has come as a shooter. Swain still has a flicky set shot that takes him a while to load up, but he made a respectable 34.4 percent of them this season after rarely taking 3s at Xavier. More notably, his career 81.5 percent free-throw mark augurs well for his continued development as a 3-point weapon. Realistically, Swain is an energy bench player when he first gets to the league. His on-ball defense isn’t quite good enough to mark him as a stopper, and he still needs to establish himself more firmly as an open 3-point shooter. But he has relatively clear starter upside at what is constantly a position of need, and he’s basically the last quality big wing left on the board. De Larrea being a good player in a tough league (Spain) as a teenager isn’t getting enough attention. He doesn’t have the overwhelming athleticism that would have teams fawning over him and will be average at best on defense. Historically, however, players who play this well in good overseas leagues at this age end up being impact players in the NBA. De Larrea can’t rank any higher because he probably doesn’t profile as a true on-ball lead guard; he struggles to get separation and could probably speed up the windup on his shot. However, he’s a true combo guard reminiscent of somebody like Bogdan Bogdanović, a threatening shooter (42.1 percent from 3, 80.6 percent from the line) who also can handle the ball and throw spicy passes out of pick-and-rolls. He chilled on the hot sauce a little this season after a huge turnover rate in 2024-25 put a damper on an otherwise solid year, but he still attempts some daring passes. De Larrea’s shooting mechanics look good, but he seems to have that slow windup. He still managed to take more than one every seven minutes in Spain; he’ll likely need to boost that volume further in the NBA. Overall, I see a rotation floor for him with the upside to be a plus starter. Spot the pattern. Connect the terms Find the hidden link between sports terms