Derik Queen Draft Analysis

NBA projection: Rotation Player

1. Draft Age

• 20.5 years (54th percentile amongst 1st round drafted players between 2004-2024)

• Despite being a NCAA freshman, Queen is older than most 1st round picks of the last 20 drafts

2. Physical Tools

• Height without shoes: 6' 9.25''

• Wingspan: 7' 0.50''

• NBA Size: small C or big Wing

3. NCAA Team Role:

• NCAA Starter at C / PF

• bpm: 7.2 (43rd percentile amongst 1st round drafted players between 2004-2024)

• Strengths:

  • leading scorer (highest usg, pts/40)

  • high FT% for C

  • good stl%

  • above average dunksmade/40

• Flaws:

  • low 3P% and low 3pa/100

  • low blk%

  • average mid finishing %

  • average rim/dunk finishing % for C

  • negative ast/tov

4. Nearest Neighbours within 2 years of Draft Age

• Neighbour means 2025 Draft Class ranks:

  • KNN Dist: 5 of 30

  • Neighbour NBA Adv Rank Mean: 11.5

    • NBA_Start% Rank: 12 of 30

    • BPM Rank: 16 of 30

    • WS/YEAR Rank: 6 of 30

    • VORP/YEAR Rank: 12 of 30

  • Overall:

    • very close neighbours

    • above average production in NBA

1. Star: Hayward

2. Starters (NBA_Start% >= 50%): Stewart, Washington, Carter, Sullinger

3. Rotation (VORP>=0): Harrell, Jones

4. Fringe (VORP<0): Perry, Petrusev, Zeller

5. Analysis

Queen is in the dreaded tweener small-C dimensions where he doesn’t quite have the shot-blocking of a C or the versatility and shooting of a wing. Queen has a shot creation advantage over all of his neighbours, but had a negative ast/tov ratio and wasn’t particularly efficient finishing at the rim and mid range so it’s unlikely a team will have him in that role as a starter. A bench role is more suited for Queen.

The NBA stats are the blank stats in Queen’s column and the filled stats are NCAA.

1. His closest neighbour was Hayward, a wing who became an NBA all star. Hayward had a shooting advantage in NCAA with a superior FT% and his 3P% improved to 37% in the NBA. Queen shot the same % at the rim as Hayward and a lower dunk finishing %. The ideal small-C tweener would have the long distance shooting of a wing and the short distance shooting of a C. Queen instead has the inside shooting of a wing and the long distance shooting of a C.

2. For the starters, Washington is wing sized and was a better 3P% at higher volume in the NCAA albeit worse from FT%. He was a better NCAA shot blocker than Queen despite being shorter. He is a decent 3 and D wing role player in the NBA that is a different, more desired archetype than Queen.

3. Carter is an effective NBA small ball C with a longer wingspan than Queen and better shot blocking. He also had better 3P shooting in the NCAA, although it hasn’t translated in the NBA. He is also a better archetype than Queen.

4. Sullinger is a close comparison to Queen with similar dimensions and age. They have similar FT%, blk% and 3pa/100 with Sullinger having the edge in 3P%. The 3P% dropped significantly in the NBA to 27%. Sullinger started 64% of NBA games, but has been out of the NBA since 2017. He moved quickly from starter to fringe bypassing the rotation player tier. This is a risk case for Queen as the tweener C that doesn’t block shots and needs to be effective from 3.

5. Stewart is another good comparable as a small ball C with a shorter height but smaller wingspan. He was also drafted 1.4 years younger than Queen. He was a starter early in his career, but is now a bench player in favour of wing Tobias Harris. Stewart was a better shot blocker than Queen also with questionable 3P% that has improved in the NBA albeit only to 34%. This would be a good outcome for Queen, but even with better blk% and 3P% in the NBA, Detroit favoured a wing to start instead of Stewart.

6. The rotation bench bigs look more realistic for Queen’s career. Harrell was a bench player the majority of his career and won the 6th man of the year. He had very similar blk%, ast/tov, orb%, 3P% and 3pa/100 to Queen. The bench big 6th man would be a good realistic outcome for Queen.

7. Jones is closer to a traditional big in terms of dimensions and play style. He was a bench C for his career, but was not in the NBA this year.

8. The fringe player that is a close comparable to Queen is Perry with similar dimensions and age. His blk% and ast/tov is very similar. The FT and 3 point shooting didn’t translate for Perry and he is out of the NBA.

For a tweener C to be an effective starter they need to have the shooting and versatility of a wing and the shot blocking and inside scoring of a C. Washington as the wing version and Carter as the C version are successful starter examples. Queen has the opposite and has the outside shooting and versatility of a C and the shot blocking and inside scoring of a wing. Queen is closer to occasional starters/rotation players like Harrell, Sullinger and Stewart. As shown in Stewart’s case, wings will likely be preferred to start instead of players in Queen’s archetype in the NBA.

Predicted NBA Outcome: Rotation Player

Appendix:

1. Star: Hayward

   1. Hayward

      1. similar

         1. closest match statistically

         2. 0.3 years younger

         3. ast% and ast/tov

         4. stl%

         5. ftr

         6. rim finishing %

      2. disadvantages

         1. big SG or small wing dimensions

         2. orb%

         3. blk%

         4. rim rate

         5. dunksmade/40

         6. shot creation: unassisted rim/mid %

      3. advantages

         1. FT% and 3P% and 3pa/100

         2. mid/dunk finishing %

      4. NBA stat changes

         1. 3P% increased to 37%

         2. decreased rebounding

         3. increased ast%

         4. ast/tov increased greatly from 0.73 => 1.84

         5. increased pts/40

2. Starters (NBA_Start% >= 50%): Stewart, Washington, Carter, Sullinger

   1. Stewart

      1. similar

         1. shorter but much longer wingspan

         2. FT%

         3. shot profile: rim/mid/3/dunk rate

      2. disadvantages

         1. ast%

         2. stl%

         3. much lower ast/tov at 0.38

         4. 3pa/100

         5. shot creation: unassisted rim/mid/dunk %

         6. dunksmade/40

      3. advantages

         1. 1.4 years younger

         2. orb%

         3. 2P% and 3P%

         4. much higher blk%

      4. NBA stat changes

         1. increased 3P% to 0.34

         2. decreased rim rate and increased 3 rate

         3. increased ast%

         4. ast/tov rose from 0.38 to 1.08

         5. decreased pts/40

   2. Washington

      1. similar

         1. 0.3 years older

         2. shorter, but longer wingspan: Wing sized

         3. orb%

         4. stl%

         5. 2P%

         6. dunksmade/40

         7. rim and dunk finishing %

      2. disadvantages

         1. FT%

         2. rim rate

         3. shot creation: unassisted rim/mid/dunk %

      3. advantages

         1. bpm

         2. blk%

         3. 3P% and 3pa/100

         4. mid finishing %

         5. ast/tov

      4. NBA stat changes

         1. 3 rate increased, shooting respectable 36%

         2. rebounding decreased

         3. ast% decreased

         4. ast/tov increased to 1.44

         5. blk% decreased

   3. Carter

      1. similar

         1. similar height with much longer wingspan

         2. FT% and 2P%

         3. stl%

         4. shot profile: rim/mid/3/dunk rates

         5. rim finishing %

      2. disadvantages

         1. higher pfr

         2. shot creation: unassisted rim/mid/dunk %

      3. advantages

         1. bpm

         2. 1.3 years younger

         3. orb%

         4. ast% and ast/tov

         5. large 3P% advantage and higher 3pa/100

         6. much higher blk%

         7. dunksmade/40

         8. mid and dunk finishing %

      4. NBA stat changes

         1. 3P% dropped to 0.32

         2. decreased blk%

         3. decreased ast%

         4. ast/tov rose to 1.33

   4. Sullinger

      1. similar

         1. 0.2 years younger

         2. shorter height but slightly longer wingspan

         3. FT%

         4. blk% and stl%

         5. 3pa/100

         6. rim finishing %

      2. disadvantages

         1. ast% and ast/tov

         2. 2P%

         3. rim rate

         4. shot creation: unassisted rim/mid/dunk %

         5. much lower dunksmade/40

      3. advantages

         1. bpm

         2. orb%

         3. 3P%

         4. mid and dunk finishing %

      4. NBA stat changes

         1. 3P% dropped to 0.27

         2. ast% rose and ast/tov rose to 1.5

         3. blk% dropped to only 1.9%

3. Rotation (VORP>=0): Harrell, Jones

   1. Harrell

      1. similar

         1. bpm

         2. shorter, but much longer wingspan

         3. orb%

         4. 3P% and 3pa/100

         5. blk%

         6. ast/tov

      2. disadvantages

         1. 0.9 years older

         2. ast%

         3. FT%

         4. stl%

         5. shot creation: unassisted rim/mid/dunk %

      3. advantages

         1. 2P%

         2. dunksmade/40

         3. rim/mid/dunk finishing %

      4. NBA stat changes

         1. 3P% dropped to 0.11

         2. pts/40 rose as a bench scorer

         3. ast% and ast/tov rose to above 1

   2. Jones

      1. similar

         1. 0.5 years older

         2. orb%

         3. ast%

         4. dunksmade/40

      2. disadvantages

         1. bpm

         2. FT%

         3. much lower stl%

         4. ast/tov

         5. 3pa/100

         6. shot creation: unassisted rim/mid/dunk %

         7. dunk finishing %

      3. advantages

         1. taller with longer wingspan

         2. blk%

         3. rim/mid finishing %

      4. NBA stat changes

         1. 3P% rose greatly to 0.35

         2. FT% rose greatly to 0.71

         3. higher dunksmade/40

         4. ast/tov rose to 1.17

4. Fringe (VORP<0): Perry, Petrusev, Zeller

   1. Perry

      1. similar

         1. bpm

         2. 0.3 years younger

         3. slightly shorter and same wingspan

         4. FT%

         5. blk%

         6. ast/tov

         7. dunksmade/40

         8. rim and mid finishing %

      2. disadvantages

         1. stl%

         2. rim rate

         3. shot creation: unassisted rim/mid/dunk %

      3. advantages

         1. orb%

         2. ast%

         3. 3P% and 3pa/100

         4. dunk finishing %

      4. NBA stat changes

         1. FT% dropped to 0.68

         2. 3P% dropped to 0.19

         3. ast% dropped by 6.2%

         4. ast/tov rose to 1

   2. Petrusev

      1. similar

         1. 0.7 years older

         2. no combine data

         3. orb%

         4. ast%

         5. 2P% and 3P%

         6. blk%

         7. ast/tov

         8. shot profile: rim/mid/3/dunk rates

         9. rim and dunk finishing %

      2. disadvantages

         1. bpm

         2. FT%

         3. stl%

         4. 3pa/100

         5. shot creation: unassisted rim/mid/dunk %

         6. dunksmade/40

      3. advantages

         1. mid finishing %

      4. NBA stat changes

         1. large rim rate, ast%, rebounding decrease

   3. Zeller

      1. similar

         1. slightly taller, similar wingspan

         2. 2P%

         3. stl%

         4. dunksmade/40

         5. rim finishing %

      2. disadvantages

         1. 1.9 years older

         2. ast% and ast/tov

         3. no 3s

         4. rim rate

         5. shot creation: unassisted rim/mid/dunk %

      3. advantages

         1. bpm

         2. orb%

         3. FT%

         4. blk%

         5. mid and dunk finishing %

      4. NBA stat changes

         1. shot some 3s at 29%

         2. orb% dropped

         3. ast% rose

         4. blk% dropped

         5. asts/tov rose to 1.12