Cooper Flagg Draft Analysis

NBA Projection: Star

1. Draft Age

• 18.5 years (1st percentile amongst 1st round drafted players between 2004-2024)

2. Physical Tools

• Height without shoes: 6' 7.75''

• Wingspan: 7' 0.00''

• NBA Size: Wing

3. NCAA Team Role:

• NCAA Starter at Wing

• bpm: 14.2 (97th percentile amongst 1st round drafted players between 2004-2024)

• Strengths

  • Leading Scorer: highest usg, pts/40 on team, high FT%, 3P%, ftr

  • Leading playmaker: highest AST_per, high ast/tov

  • defensive stats: high blk_per and stl_per

  • athletic: high dunksmade/40

• Flaws

  • 2p% = 0.52 low for wing

  • rim finishing % = 0.6 low for wing

4. Nearest Neighbours within 2 years of Draft Age

• Neighbour means 2025 Draft Class ranks:

  • KNN Dist: 28 of 30

  • Neighbour NBA Adv Rank Mean: 9.75

    • NBA_Start% Rank: 6 of 30

    • BPM Rank: 9 of 30

    • WS/YEAR Rank: 8 of 30

    • VORP/YEAR Rank: 16 of 30

  • Overall:

    • very distant neighbours

    • above average production in NBA

1. Starters (NBA_Start% >= 50%): Porter, Russell, Caldwell-Pope, Smith, Clingan

2. Rotation (VORP > 0): Adams, Podz, Williams

3. Fringe (VORP < 0): Culver and Jackson

5. Analysis

Flagg is a unique NCAA prospect as he is one of the youngest prospects while also being one of the most productive. He is a wing-sized leading scorer and playmaker while also having the skillset of a 3 and D role-playing wing. He does not have very close statistical matches as he is well rounded in many roles while most players aren’t. His closest neighbours include NBA starting PG, SG, Wings and C. Flagg is a better 3 and D prospect than Porter, KCP, and Smith and a better PG prospect than Russell. He’s not quite the C prospect as Clingan, but Flagg would not be expected to be a starting C.

The neighbours that busted were also lottery picks (Culver and Jackson), but they are older, lack the physical tools and well-roundedness of Flagg. It is highly unlikely Flagg busts in the same manner that these 2 did.

He is very likely to greatly exceed all of his closest statistical matches as he is younger, more productive in several roles (lead scorer, lead playmaker, 3 and D wing) and has better physical tools than all of them. Thus with such a high floor at a young age, he very likely will be a star and is the unquestioned number 1 prospect in the 2025 draft.

Predicted NBA Outcome: Star

Appendix:

1. Starters (NBA_Start% >= 50%): Porter, Russell, Caldwell-Pope, Smith, Clingan

   1. Starter 3 and D wings: Porter and Smith

   2. Starter 3 and D SG: Caldwell-Pope

   3. Starter PG: Russell

   4. Starter C: Clingan

   5. Porter

      1. closest match to Flagg statistically

      2. similar wing sized dimensions (longer wingspan for Porter)

      3. disadvantages

         1. 1.5 years older

         2. lacks playmaking, athleticism, shot creation upside of Flagg

            1. ast%: 18.5 vs 26.8

            2. dunksmade/40: 0.29 vs 1.27

            3. lower rim rate: 0.25 vs 0.39

            4. Unassisted two %: 0.41 vs 0.66

   6. Russell

      1. SG or big PG sized instead of Wing-sized

      2. Starting PG in NBA for most of career

      3. disadvantages

         1. playamaking: lower ast/tov ratio than Flagg

         2. lacks athleticism and defensive upside of Flagg

            1. dunksmade/40: 0.13 vs 1.27

            2. orb%: 3.6 vs 5.5

            3. blk%: 1.1 vs 4.9

      4. advantages

         1. superior 3 point shot creation vs Flagg

            1. unassisted 3%: 0.45 vs 0.17

            2. 3pa/100: 11.66 vs 7.17

   7. Caldwell-Pope

      1. disadvantages

         1. SG sized instead of wing-sized

         2. lacks playmaking, defensive, athleticism

            1. negative ast/tov ratio: 0.91 vs 2 for Flagg

            2. dunksmade/40: 0.55 vs 1.27

            3. blk%: 1.9 vs 4.9

      2. advantages

         1. better from 3P%

            1. 3pa/100: 13.21 vs 7.17

   8. Smith

      1. no combine data, but also wing-sized

      2. disadvantages

         1. 0.6 years older and closest neighbour to Flagg’s age

         2. lack playmaking, defensize, athleticism, shot creation upside of Flagg

         3. worse FT%: 0.8 vs 0.84

      3. advantages

         1. better 3P% and three rate

   9. Clingan

      1. sophomore: starting C or backup early in career

      2. C dimensions instead of Wing

      3. disadvantages

         1. all traditional non-C stats

      4. advantages

         1. traditional C stats (orb%, blk%, dunksmade/40)

2. Rotation (VORP > 0): Adams, Podz, Williams

   1. Adams

      1. disadvantages

         1. SG sized instead of wing-sized like Flagg

         2. unathletic compared to Flagg

            1. 0 dunksmade/40 in NCAA vs 1.27 for Flagg

   2. Podz

      1. 6th man or occasional starting SG in NBA

      2. disadvantages

         1. PG sized instead of Wing-sized

         2. lacks defensive, playmaking and athletic upside of Flagg

   3. Williams

      1. disadvantages

         1. 2 years older than Flagg

         2. SG sized instead of Wing-sized

         3. closest NCAA defensive stats to Flagg, stats dropped in NBA

            1. stl%: 2 => 1.1

            2. blk%: 5.3 => 2.1

         4. lacks shot creation, playmaking, athletic upside of Flagg

            1. unassisted 2%: 0.43 vs 0.66 for Flagg

            2. ast%: 18.3 vs 26.8 for Flagg

            3. ast/tov 1.41 vs 2 for Flagg

            4. dunksmade/40: 0.8 vs 1.27 for Flagg

3. Fringe (VORP < 0): Culver and Jackson

   1. Culver

      1. disadvantages

         1. 1.8 years older than Flagg

         2. has SG dimensions not Wing dimensions

         3. poor shooting % in NCAA worsened in NBA

            1. 3P%: 0.3 => 0.28

            2. FT%: 0.71 => 0.51

         4. Flagg shooting is far superior to Culver (3P% and FT%)

   2. Jackson

      1. didn’t measure at combine

      2. disadvantages

         1. 1.9 years older than Flagg

         2. poor shooter compared to Flagg and 3P% didn’t translate to NBA

            1. FT%: 0.57

            2. 3P%: 0.38 => 0.29

         3. poor playmaker compared to Flagg

            1. ast/tov ratio at 1.07 instead of 2