The NBA Draft's statistical darlings and what the numbers don't like
Stats are a massive scouting tool that can't be underutilized. Here are the metric's favorites, and what the numbers don't favor about their games.
The increased volume and availability of statistics have overhauled draft conversations. There are legitimate trends to suggest that numbers like box plus-minus are still undervalued as legitimate tools today.
My philosophy centers around using every tool available — numbers included. Too often, takes center stage around picking a side of the aisle between raw film and numbers. The two can, and should, be used together to help create a more all-inclusive process.
That said, the numbers have their favorites. If you were to go to BartTorvik.com and sort by BPM, you’ll see the split. For one, college basketball’s best player and the NBA Draft’s top prospect, Cooper Flagg, is well on top of the list with a historically high 15.0 BPM. Other consensus top guys like Flagg’s teammate Kon Knueppel and top-five likely VJ Edgecombe find themselves ranking high.
However, there are players that the public, more casual fans, and even dedicated film-only scouts tend not to view favorably. South Carolina’s one-man wrecking crew, Collin Murray-Boyles, and National Player of the Year runner-up Johni Broome are projected much lower than their high-impact peers. Hell, Jase Richardson, one of the highest-impact freshmen in college basketball, didn’t even get a green room invite.
It’s not just that the film doesn’t pop. It certainly does, it might just not seem translatable for one reason or another. Or, maybe, when you dig into the numbers, advanced and simple, you get ugly or underwhelming answers. Here are a few of the “stat darlings“ who, in some aspects, big and small, the numbers don’t like.
Final 2025 NBA Draft Big Board
It’s been a turbulent cycle, but one that has taught scouts a great deal about how the NBA Draft will work moving forward. An older, tighter group of prospects is a direct result of the changing landscape of college basketball, and what the NBA will inevitably do to combat this is yet to be seen.
Collin Murray-Boyles, South Carolina (Big Board: 3rd)
What the numbers don’t like:
Three-point shooting (2.1 3PA/100)
Turnovers (15.4% TO rate)
It’s hard to look at the statistical profile of Collin Murray-Boyles and find a number you don’t like. He’s arguably the best non-Cooper Flagg prospect in the class in terms of all-in-one metrics with an 11.1 BPM despite playing on a horrid South Carolina team.
Additionally, Murray-Boyles was an efficient scorer (63.0% TS) with a significant workload (27.0% usage). He’s also likely one of the draft’s best defensive players, with one-man wrecking crew potential as a small-ball big. However, there’s one area of the court Murray-Boyles hasn’t had praise on: beyond the arc.
Murray-Boyles shot just 9-of-35 from 3-point range with middling indicators from the free-throw line and mid-range. The question of whether or not Murray-Boyles will be able to shoot is one I’ve considered to be overblown, wishing to shift the narrative to whether or not he’ll ever truly need to shoot. It’s not as if there isn’t scoring craft there without a knockdown jumper — on 159 combined post-up and isolation possessions this season, Murray-Boyles scored at a rate of 1.088 points per possession.
The other pinpoint statistics don’t love when it comes to Murray-Boyles is even easier to dismiss. Murray-Boyles possessed a sub-standard turnover rate at 15.4% with an almost dead-even assist-to-turnover ratio.
One reason this is easy to disregard is that Murray-Boyles is a genuinely awesome passer positionally. It won’t show in the raw numbers due to the sheer difference in talent between him and his supporting cast, however, and that’s largely why turnovers were a small issue for Murray-Boyles.
Increased defensive attention and unsure hands of the teammates Murray-Boyles shared the floor with generated extra possessions for South Carolina’s opponents, but it’s hard to pin that as something that will impact Murray-Boyles’ future in the NBA.
Kon Knueppel, Duke (Big Board: 4th)
What the numbers don’t like:
Dunks (2-of-5)
Stocks (2.0 STL rate and 0.6 BLK rate)
Off-the-dribble 3PT shooting (3-of-21)
Unsurprisingly, Kon Knueppel, who seems to be a surefire top ten pick, is vastly liked statistically. His spot in the draft is also largely due to his film popping off the screen as well, as a smart player, capable defender, and above all, a knockdown shooter.
What little that does come up red, however, is largely his athleticism-related numbers. Knueppel doesn’t get above the rim, and he doesn’t create a ton of events defensively. Knueppel tested above expectations athletically; however, it’ll probably be something that never pops in-game. He’s far more comfortable playing stronger, with more pace, and off two feet.
Knueppel has cited Golden State star Jimmy Butler as an inspiration behind that two-footed style. He’s more than capable of slithering himself around screens and through the chests of defenders to get within 8-to-10 feet of the hoop, establishing his space with a wide base, and pivoting or faking into a basket.
The athletic concerns continue on the defensive end, but again, Knueppel’s found ways to counteract them. Like his around-the-rim arsenal, Knueppel’s defensive impact (which is good in all regards) centers around strength and smarts, as well as some surprisingly quick feet.
He’s genuinely hard to get around, and even if his lackluster pop off the floor and near-neutral wingspan prevent him from skying for blocks or terrorizing passing lanes, he made a name for himself within a dominant Duke defense.
The pull-up shooting inefficiency is a separate note. Knueppel, undeniably, is one of the better shooters in the 2025 NBA Draft. He shot 40.3% on threes overall and 43.3% off the catch. A ton of his looks were assisted, as briefly mentioned in my dissection of Tre Johnson, but still, it’s clear Kon has the indicators to be a special off-the-dribble shot-maker. With his abundance of signs, it’s just a matter of time.
Jase Richardson, Michigan State (Big Board: 9th)
What the numbers don’t like:
Size (6’0.5” without shoes)
Assist percentage (14.4%)
Self-creation load (54.9% of FGM assisted)
Small guards will always receive a certain amount of criticism, and for good reason. There’s a need for size in the league, on both sides of the ball. There’s a direct correlation between size and defensive impact, as well as finishing ability, meaning players like Jase Richardson have an uphill battle to fight.
However, shot-making is the vehicle to get up that hill. Richardson is undeniably one of the best in this regard, with his immense impact for an incredible Michigan State team being almost solely on the back of that ability. His role grew throughout the season, but a large share of his buckets were made off the ball. He shot 54.2% inside the arc and 40.9% beyond it with a hit rate of 45.7% off the catch.
He’s always moving into open space, finding creases to shoot and getting the shots up quickly with incredible efficiency.
The issue that many have drawn with Richardson comes from his lack of on-ball usage. For as excellent a high-volume off-ball player as he was, he really didn’t get the opportunity to shine on the ball with the Spartans.
Richardson’s low assist and turnover rates are a large part of this. He operated just 123 pick-and-rolls, resulting in a pass or shot, and while scoring over a point per possession in that setting, he ranked in just the 57th percentile for frequency.
That said, Richardson’s efficiency in just about every on-ball play type there is shows there might be more than meets the eye. He has a ways to go to prove he can be the lead guard teams want in players under 6 feet, 3 inches, but what he lacks in volume, he makes up for in spades with efficiency.
Nique Clifford, Colorado State (Big Board: 17th)
What the numbers don’t like:
Average measurements
Spot-up scoring (42nd percentile)
Age (23.4 years old)
There isn’t a ton that Nique Clifford didn’t excel in as a fifth-year, and it’s truly part of one of the best in-college developments we’ve seen in recent memory. Clifford went from averaging 5.9 points per game as a junior at Colorado to a fifth year at Colorado State, averaging 18.9 points and 9.6 rebounds, winning MVC Tournament Player of the Year.
For many, age is the only thing limiting Clifford from having a lottery-worthy ceiling. He’ll be in his prime by the end of his rookie deal, whereas someone like Cooper Flagg will likely be at the same place at the end of his first rookie max extension.
Despite that, these stories of growth are often a point of immense emphasis for older prospects. The likelihood of a player who stagnated in college stagnating in the league is much higher than it is for a collegiate prospect like Clifford, who still has so much room to grow.
That said, his physical profile underwhelmed slightly at the combine. He came in right around where many expected him to in terms of height, and was just two pounds off his weight at Colorado State, but a mere 6-foot-8 wingspan has left scouts wanting more. Clifford’s motor and athleticism make up for that, but had he been an inch taller with a wingspan closer to 7 feet, we’re likely seeing him in the range of someone like Cedric Coward more often.
The other concern is that Clifford was merely average as a spot-up scorer. There’s plenty to like with how he projects as a shooter and as someone who can take on-ball reps (he graded out as a 91st percentile pick-and-roll ball handler), but the ability to attack closeouts and create from a standstill remains lackluster.
That said, it seems like an easy gap for Clifford to bridge. He has the handle, the shot and the first step to be more than effective as a scorer in these instances.
Johni Broome, Auburn (Big Board: 22nd)
What the numbers don’t like:
3-point shooting indicators
Explosiveness/size
Johni Broome was the most dominant player in college basketball. Cooper Flagg was the best, but on the nation’s best conference team, Auburn, the Tigers’ best player made his impact known across the box score. He was one of college basketball’s best rebounders and shot-blockers, as well as an excellent scorer and passer on top of it.
There just wasn’t much Broome didn’t do at an elite level last year, and it showed in his impact metrics. The one pokeable hole in his game is his shot behind the arc. The lefty’s release is hitchy, to say the least, and it didn’t fall with consistency from anywhere. His free-throw shooting is jarring, and his 3-point percentage is underwhelming.
On top of that, his role as a center at the next level is in question because of his lack of size and explosiveness. Broome measured just 6-foot-9.25 in socks at the combine, and with a so-so 9-foot-0.5 standing reach and a poor 24.5-inch standing vertical, there are genuine questions to be made of whether he’ll be able to produce as a shot-blocker at the next level.
That said, Broome didn’t have as much of an impact on the game at the collegiate level as he did because he couldn’t find his way to the court. He was the National Player of the Year runner-up and someone with winning experience, teams are going to be clamoring for. If that comes in the second round, so be it. Broome is a player.