Danny Wolf Draft Analysis

NBA Projection: Rotation Player

Drew

May 31, 2025

21.1 years (65th percentile amongst 1st round drafted players between 2004-2024)
Junior

2. Physical Tools

Height without shoes: 6' 10.50''
Wingspan: 7' 2.25''
NBA Size: small C

3. NCAA Team Role:

NCAA Starter at PF
bpm: 8.68 (66th percentile amongst 1st round drafted players between 2004-2024)
Strengths:
- 2nd highest usg and pts/40 on team
- playmaker: 2nd (very close to 1st) highest ast% on team
  - very high ast% for C
- decent 3P% for C: 0.34
- ast/tov above 1 at 1.1
- above average shot creation: unassisted rim/mid/3/dunk %
Flaws:
- very high to%
- poor FT%: 0.59
- below average 2P% for C
- below average blk% for C
- below average stl%
- below average rim/mid/dunk shooting %
- low dunksmade/40

4. Nearest Neighbours within 2 years of Draft Age

Neighbour means 2025 Draft Class ranks:
- KNN Dist: 18 of 30
- Neighbour NBA Adv Rank Mean: 9.75
  - NBA_Start% Rank: 8 of 30
  - BPM Rank: 7 of 30
  - WS/YEAR Rank: 18 of 30
  - VORP/YEAR Rank: 6 of 30
- Overall:
  - averagely distant neighbours
  - above average production in NBA

Star: Green, Cunningham
Starters (NBA_Start% >= 50%): Johnson, Parsons, Suggs
Rotation (VORP>=0): Nance, Mamukelashvili
Fringe (VORP<0): Jackson, Rice, Mann

5. Analysis

Wolf is a 7 foot playmaking centre. First thing I’m just going to say he’s not going to be Jokic.

He’s an older prospect as a junior and played the same minutes/game as a sophomore and junior and actually decreased in usage, but changed the style of his game to lead to an almost doubling of his bpm.

Key changes from So to Jr:

orb% increased : 7.2% => 9.1%
ast% up: 15.4 => 22.8
FT% down: 0.71 => 0.59
2P% up: 0.51 => 0.57
stl% and blk% down
rim and mid shooting % up
shot creation up: unassisted rim/mid/3/dunk

Key constants:

ast/tov
3P% and 3pa/100
dunksmade/40

Wolf changed his gameplay to become a higher volume playmaker (ast% up), but not necessarily a better playmaker (ast/tov the same). He created a higher % of his shots and had a large increase in 2%. But his shooting remained the same (3P% and 3pa/100) while his FT% dropped. Wolf proved that he could become more of a lead option on a team, but didn’t do it efficiently enough where a team would want him in that role.

Wolf is the prospect with the most eclectic set of neighbours: 3 PGs, 1 SG, 3 Wings, and 3 small Cs. This is understandable for a funky, unique player. The question is is he taking the best aspects of each position or the worse?

The first star comparison is what remains the Platonic ideal for every small playmaking C, Draymond Green. Green is older and wing sized, but was able to anchor a dynasty as a starting C. Green struggled in the NCAA from 2P% and is still poor in the NBA, but has functioned as a perfect complement to Curry, the greatest 3 point shooter in history. Green’s offence contribution is mostly passing, screen setting and the occasional 3 at which he does at a mediocre 3P%. Wolf had worse NCAA shooting markers than Green (3P% and FT%) so would not be expected to be a significantly better shooter. Wolf blocks better than Green in the NBA, but Green is the rare case of a C that can be defensive player of the year C while being a poor C shotblocker (2.9%). Green is able to guard smaller players as a switchable defender, which Wolf is unlikely to match (low stl% of 1.3%). A comparison to Green seems as implausible as a comparison to Jokic for a playmaking C prospect.
The 2 similar sized players who would likely have similar NBA roles are rotation players Nance and Mamukelashvili. Nance was older and likely smaller than Wolf. Wolf has the rebounding and 2P% advantage with similarities in blk%, 3P%, ast% and ast/tov. Nance has a higher stl% and is a better switchable defender than Wolf. Overall Nance is a good reasonable comparison for Wolf’s NBA output provided he changes his NBA game to match Nance as a low usage (13.8%) backup big.
Mamu is also an older and less productive NCAA prospect who has a role as a backup big with a high 3 point attempt rate at 35%. Mamu had better shooting markers in the NCAA, so Wolf would need to improve in order to emulate this NBA role.

Wolf has functioned as a starting playmaking PF/C in the NCAA, but is unlikely to be in the same role in the NBA. He playmakes, but also turns the ball over too much. He can create a high % of shots, but doesn’t score effectively from 2 and with a low dunksmade/40 he’s not providing the most efficient shot for a C. he shoots some 3s, but not at a high enough 3P% and FT% or on high volume. He blocks some shots, but not enough compared to most Cs. He has a low stl% and is not likely to be very switchable on the perimeter against wings and guards. To be successful in the NBA, Wolf will have to transform his game into a low usage backup C like Nance or shoot 3s at high volume and decent 3P% like Mamu.

I suppose there is another option and a team lets him wolf out in a 6th man, bench, pseudo-Jokic limited minutes role by building the bench offence around him. Let Wolf be Wolf as a 6th man to shot create and attempt passes which would be as likely to be an assist as a turnover. It might not be the most efficient, but it’ll sure be unique, funky and chaotic. I would be interested in seeing it.

Predicted NBA Outcome: Rotation Player

Star: Green, Cunningham
1. Green
  1. similar
    1. ast% and ast/tov
    2. 3pa/100
    3. rim and mid finishing %
  2. disadvantages
    1. Wing size: much shorter with smaller wingspan
    2. 1.2 years older
    3. orb%
    4. 2P%
    5. blk%
    6. pfr
    7. rim rate
    8. shot creation: unassisted rim/mid/3/dunk %
  3. advantages
    1. bpm
    2. lower to%
    3. FT% and 3P%
    4. stl%
    5. pts/40
    6. dunksmade/40 and dunk finishing %
  4. NBA stat changes
    1. 3P% drop to 0.32
    2. rim rate down, 3 rate up
    3. rebounding % large drop
    4. ast% up
    5. ast/tov large increase to 2.43
    6. usg large decrease
2. Cunningham
  1. similar
    1. ast%
    2. dunksmade/40
    3. rim/mid shooting %
  2. disadvantages
    1. bpm
    2. much lower orb%
    3. 2P%
    4. blk%
    5. negative ast/tov
    6. rim rate
    7. unassisted mid/dunk %
    8. dunk shooting %
  3. advantages
    1. 1.4 years younger
    2. no combine: Wing or big SG size
    3. much higher FT% and 3P% and 3pa/100
    4. stl%
    5. pts/40
    6. unassisted rim/3 %
  4. NBA stat changes
    1. 3P% drop to 0.34
    2. mid rate up, 3 rate down
    3. ast% massive increase (16.3%), to% massive decrease (6.3%)
    4. ast/tov massive increase to 1.95
Starters (NBA_Start% >= 50%): Johnson, Parsons, Suggs
1. Johnson
  1. similar
    1. closest statistical match
    2. ast%
    3. FT%
    4. rim rate and rim shooting %
  2. disadvantages
    1. only 13 NCAA games
    2. Wing size
    3. orb%
    4. 2P%
    5. negative ast/tov
    6. 3pa/100
    7. shot creation: unassisted rim/mid/3/dunk %
    8. mid shooting %
  3. advantages
    1. 1.6 years younger
    2. bpm
    3. 3P%
    4. large blk% and stl% diff
    5. pts/40
    6. dunksmade/40 and dunk shooting %
  4. NBA stat changes
    1. 3P% large drop to 0.32
    2. FT% large jump to 0.71
    3. large decrease in rim rate
    4. large orb% drop
    5. ast% drop, to% large drop
    6. large drop in stl% and blk%
    7. large usg drop
    8. ast/tov large increase to 1.86
2. Parsons
  1. similar
    1. bpm
    2. ast%
    3. FT% and 2P%
    4. stl%
    5. 3pa/100
    6. dunk shooting %
  2. disadvantages
    1. 1.5 years older
    2. small Wing: shorter with smaller wingspan
    3. orb%
    4. blk%
    5. pts/40
    6. rim rate
    7. shot creation: unassisted rim/mid/3/dunk %
    8. mid shooting %
  3. advantages
    1. 3P%
    2. ast/tov
    3. dunksmade/40
    4. rim shooting %
  4. NBA stat changes
    1. FT% up
    2. rim rate down, 3 rate up
    3. orb% and drb% down
    4. ast% and to% large drop
3. Suggs
  1. similar
    1. bpm
    2. ast%
    3. 3P% and 3pa/100
    4. rim rate
    5. unassisted rim/mid%
    6. rim/dunk shooting %
  2. disadvantages
    1. no combine: PG size
    2. orb%
    3. blk%
    4. unassisted dunk%
  3. advantages
    1. 1.1 years younger
    2. FT%
    3. large stl% diff
    4. ast/tov
    5. pts/40
    6. unassisted 3%
    7. dunksmade/40
    8. mid shooting %
  4. NBA stat changes
    1. rim rate down, mid and 3 rate up
    2. unassisted 3% large drop
    3. drb% down
    4. ast% and to% down
Rotation (VORP>=0): Nance, Mamukelashvili
1. Nance
  1. similar
    1. ast%
    2. 3P%
    3. blk%
    4. ast/tov
    5. pts/40
    6. mid shooting %
  2. disadvantages
    1. bpm
    2. no combine: likely smaller and more wing size
    3. orb%
    4. 2P%
    5. 3pa/100
    6. rim rate
    7. shot creation: unassisted rim/mid/3/dunk %
  3. advantages
    1. 1.4 years younger
    2. FT%
    3. stl%
    4. dunksmade/40
    5. rim shooting %
  4. NBA stat changes
    1. mid rate down, 3 rate up
    2. ast% large drop
    3. blk% down
    4. ast/tov large rise to 2.11
    5. usg large drop
2. Mamukelashvili
  1. similar
    1. ast%
    2. 3P%
    3. unassisted rim %
  2. disadvantages
    1. 1 year older
    2. bpm
    3. slightly shorter with smaller wingspan
    4. orb%
    5. much lower 2P%
    6. blk%
    7. ast/tov
    8. rim rate
    9. shot creation: unassisted mid/3/dunk %
  3. advantages
    1. FT%
    2. stl%
    3. pts/40
    4. 3pa/100
    5. dunksmade/40
    6. rim/mid/dunk shooting %
  4. NBA stat changes
    1. rim rate large drop, 3 rate large rise
    2. unassisted 2% drop
    3. orb% down
    4. ast% and to% large drop
    5. ast/tov large rise
    6. usg large drop
Fringe (VORP<0): Jackson, Rice, Mann
1. Jackson
  1. similar
    1. bpm
    2. orb%
    3. FT%, 2P%
    4. ast/tov
    5. 3pa/100
    6. mid/dunk shooting %
  2. disadvantages
    1. 0.7 years younger
    2. ast%
    3. blk%
    4. rim rate
    5. shot creation: unassisted rim/mid/3/dunk %
  3. advantages
    1. 3P%
    2. stl%
    3. dunksmade/40
    4. rim shooting %
  4. NBA stat changes
    1. FT% up to 0.68
    2. 3P% down to 0.29
    3. rim rate down, 3 rate up
    4. orb% and drb% down
    5. ast% down
    6. stl% and blk% down
2. Rice
  1. similar
    1. orb%
    2. FT% and 3P%
    3. ast/tov
    4. pts/40
    5. unassisted rim/3%
  2. disadvantages
    1. bpm
    2. 1.4 years older
    3. SG size
    4. ast%
    5. 2P%
    6. blk%
    7. rim rate
    8. unassisted mid/dunk %
    9. dunk shooting %
  3. advantages
    1. stl%
    2. 3pa/100
    3. dunksmade/40
    4. rim/mid shooting %
  4. NBA stat changes
    1. 3P% dropped to 0.25
    2. shot creation down: unassisted 2/3%
    3. orb% and drb% down
    4. ast% large drop
    5. blk% down
    6. negative ast/tov ratio
3. Mann
  1. similar
    1. ast%
    2. unassisted mid%
  2. disadvantages
    1. bpm
    2. PG size
    3. orb%
    4. 2P%
    5. blk%
    6. rim rate
    7. unassisted dunk%
  3. advantages
    1. 0.7 years younger
    2. FT% and 3P%
    3. stl%
    4. ast/tov
    5. pts/40
    6. 3pa/100
    7. unassisted rim/3%
  4. NBA stat changes
    1. 3P% drop to 0.35
    2. unassisted 2/3% drop
    3. ast% and to% large drop
    4. usg drop
    5. ast/tov rise to 1.92

DrewDataDesign’s Substack

Discussion about this post