Lessons Learned from My Scouting Misses | The Prospect Overview
This week, Maxwell goes through a few lessons learned from his scouting misses. PLUS: Quick Hits on 2025 NBA Draft prospects Carter Bryant, Chad Baker-Mazara, Samson Johnson, and more!
One thing I love about scouting is that it’s a relentless pursuit. No one will ever be perfect at it. There will always be outliers and unexpected developments. Trends will change, and no one knows with 100% certainty how the league’s play style might evolve in the future. Still, it isn’t a fruitless endeavor. You can always get better at it. That’s what I try my best to do. I’ve had my hits, but I’ve also had my fair share of misses. I feel that where I’ve been able to make strides as a scout is by assessing those misses and adjusting where necessary to improve my process going forward. I’m far from perfect, but I do feel as if I’m always getting better. There are a lot of things I’ve learned from being wrong, but today, there are five that I really want to focus on. Let’s get into it!
1. Get familiar with data and learn how to apply it
The first year I fully dedicated myself to the scouting process (as much as anyone with a kid and a real job can) was for the 2022 NBA Draft. And that year, the number one prospect on my board was Jabari Smith Jr. To be fair, Jabari Smith Jr. was a really great prospect. He was a 6’10” 3-and-D guy. The man launched 10.8 threes per 100 possessions and made 42% of them. This wasn’t just standstill stuff, either. Per Synergy, he went 22-for-53 on off-the-dribble threes! That’s incredible! He had good basic recognition as a passer (14 AST%, 1.05 A:TO). Smith put together a great defensive resume, too—his 3.8 BLK%, 2.1 STL%, and 23.5 DRB% all graded out really well for a forward prospect, let alone one in his freshman year. Maybe I’m being too kind to myself, and hindsight is 20/20, but I truly believe that with what I know now, I would not have ranked Jabari Smith Jr. number one in that class.
Again, Jabari Smith Jr. was an awesome prospect. Most high-major freshmen who have a BPM over 10 end up being quite good in the NBA. But where he was lacking was the “star player stuff.” A lot of that stemmed from his lack of natural athleticism. Given his size, teams were eager to chase Smith off the line…but he still never really got to the rim all that much. Per Synergy, only 11.9% of his halfcourt shots came at the rim. That puts him in similar company to Sam Hauser, Gary Trent, and Isaiah Joe. All three of those guys have had great NBA careers, but they have their limitations. And Jabari Smith Jr. had those limitations, too. His lack of bend, first-step explosiveness, and adequate bounce off one foot severely hindered his ability to get to the rim in a halfcourt setting. Instead, Smith had to settle for mid-range shots a lot, and he wasn’t exactly an assassin there, converting 39.7% of his pull-up twos. The bottom line was that Smith would likely always be a perimeter-oriented player with solid-but-not-great feel who couldn’t routinely create or punish advantages. That would mean that a star outcome was highly unlikely.
Unfortunately, my understanding of that data wasn’t there at the time. I’d convinced myself that spacing was an issue that limited his rim pressure, given that Walker Kessler was under the rim a lot. Well…a lot of NBA teams also play fives that don’t stretch the floor, so that was a bad premise. I also thought that, given Smith’s age, he could improve his flexibility, speed, and handle. I mean, sure, but would it ever get to a point that it was ahead of his peers? That would require outlier development. I should have been far more critical of his shortcomings. A lot of this will come up again in the next section, so we’ll put a pin in some of this for now.
There are some areas where I’ll give myself grace on Smith. I think the data case for his shot being elite, or at least close to it, was really strong. That hasn’t materialized at the NBA level. But outside of that, the data showed clear as day that Smith had severe limitations when it came to star upside involving advantage creation. It simply wasn’t on the table. Still, the rest of the data did indeed show that Smith had some fantastic traits. He hit threes on high volume, rebounded on defense, moved the ball, and made plays on defense. At 6’10”, that’s super valuable. There was a good data case for him, but it was more the data case of an elite role player than simply an elite player.
2. Account for context, but don’t make excuses for a prospect
I adored Jalen Hood-Schifino’s tape at Monteverde. I was tantalized by the combination of his size and his slick passing. Defensively, he used his length well and led his team in steals. Sure, his jump shot was a massive question mark. But if he figured out how to shoot, he could become a jumbo initiator that overwhelmed opposing point guards with his size.
His season at Indiana had some great highs. In early January, he carved up Iowa for 21 points and nine assists. He followed it up with a 33-point outing against Northwestern. Later in the year, he dropped 35 in an upset win over Purdue. At times, it felt like it was all there.
But all in all, his statistical profile was pretty brutal. Let’s start big picture. Hood-Schifino had a 0.7 BPM. I don’t have record of a single impactful NBA guard with that low of a BPM in their final pre-draft season. The closest I could come up with is Gabe Vincent at 2.6, and he still toiled around for a few years before he found his footing. JHS’s assist-to-turnover (1.32), assist rate (20.2), and turnover rate (16.9) all graded out poorly, and playmaking was supposed to be his thing. His 33.3% from deep on low volume for a guard left a lot to be desired. It’s not like he was doing much inside either—he rarely got to the rim and made only 46% of his shots there, and his .189 FTr indicated that he didn’t like playing through contact. His defensive production (1.4 STL%, 0.8 BLK%) was bad, too. Ultimately, we were left with a guy who was best with the ball in his hands, who wasn’t very good with the ball in his hands, struggled to shoot, wouldn’t do anything inside, and wasn’t providing defensive value at the college level. A lot of this can also tie back to lesson number one. If I had understood this data and correctly applied it, I could’ve avoided a bad ranking.
Again, maybe I’m being too kind to the evaluator that I am now. But I don’t think I’d put someone with those issues in my Top 20, or even my Top 40 today. I’d probably have him in the “well, if you want to swing on a two-way, I’d get it” range. So, why did I do that? Because I made excuses for Jalen Hood-Schifino. He was really good in high school! His team context wasn’t ideal, and a lot of his turnovers stemmed from the fact that his teammates didn’t properly anticipate some of his flashy passes. He might not be able to shoot yet, but I thought that he could later down the road because he made so many pull-up twos. Instead, I should have asked: “Why is he taking so many pull-up twos instead of rim shots and threes?” I also explained away his rim finishing and defensive production because he dealt with back injuries. Instead, I should have acknowledged the reality that even without health issues, he was a subpar athlete by NBA standards who provided little off-ball value on either end of the floor. I wanted Jalen Hood-Schifino to succeed because I liked watching his tape when he was clicking. It’s admirable to want a player to succeed, but that can’t cloud my judgment.
Context matters, yes. Some players have to play in a more difficult environment than others. Look at Ajay Mitchell, for instance. His pre-draft team was rough. But he still managed to pressure the rim, get to the foul line, and post good playmaking numbers. It’s important to acknowledge that not everyone will play in the same environment. But it’s also important to acknowledge that genuine NBA talents usually still find a way to stand out even when they’re in a less-than-ideal situation. So yes, think about the context, but also, don’t make excuses for a player.
3. Appreciate the outliers (especially if they have positional size)
I really took an interest in the draft during the 2021 cycle, but truthfully, I had very little idea as to what I was doing. A lot of the data stuff I talked about earlier is going to apply to this, too, but it goes beyond that. One guy I really didn’t “get” at the time was Sam Hauser. LOOK, I KNOW THIS IS STUPID NOW, THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS COLUMN, JUST STICK WITH ME, PLEASE!
My mindset at the time was very “3-and-D” oriented. I was far more interested in the idea of players who could potentially bring value on both sides of the ball as opposed to guys who could definitely bring it on one side but could be a big negative on the other. I messed up with Hauser on both of those accounts. For starters, I didn’t fully appreciate the greatness of his shooting resume. Hauser never shot less than 40% from three during any of his four college seasons. He also never took less than 9.0 threes per 100 possessions during that time. This man was bombing triples at an elite level, year in and year out. Even the best shooters tend to have some variance. For Hauser, his variance was going 48.7% one year as opposed to a measly 40.2% in other years. Even his worst swings were fantastic. He was an “outlier great” shooting prospect. Plus, he reliably moved the ball (career 2.1 APG to 1.1 TOV), and he never shot below 50% on twos. Basically, he had other stuff he could resort to if teams were super keyed in on preventing him from shooting.
Where I really underestimated Hauser was his defense. To be clear, his defensive playmaking numbers (1.1 STL%, 1.4 BLK%) weren’t anything special during his pre-draft season. However, those types of numbers aren’t disqualifying when it comes to great shooters. Guys like Luke Kennard, Danuel House, and Saddiq Bey produced in a similar vicinity on this front. While I was hung up on Hauser being a little slow, I vastly underappreciated how far his positional size would go. At 6’6.75” barefoot and a hair under 220 pounds at the NBA combine, Hauser was no shrimp. And while he might not have been the betting favorite in a foot race against the league’s best athletes, he did have the discipline to slide his feet pretty well. Add in his toughness and ability to use the chest, and Hauser has been able to prevent himself from being a hunting target at the NBA level. If Hauser was 6’4” and 190 pounds, these traits might not have mattered. But he had the positional size to play forward in the NBA. Add in that he was an offensive outlier, and he should’ve been a no-brainer.
Longtime readers of my work know the adage that I repeat time and time again—most NBA wings will be asked to make threes, reliably move the ball, and hold their own on defense. Part of that is largely informed by what the data tells us about how fourth through ninth men are utilized in the NBA. But another part of it is because my miss on Sam Hauser has haunted me like a ghost. I should’ve known better then, but at least I know better now.
4. Keep the bar high and remember what you’re trying to project
Both #4 and #5 tie together as well. I’m known to get in the mud and watch the lower levels of college hoops, scraping to find prospects anywhere I can. The No Stone Unturned series, where I try to uncover deep sleepers, is my favorite thing to produce for this site every year. I spend a lot of time in the NBA Draft mud trying to get ahead of the curve.
As time has gone on, I believe that I actually spend less time on those games and players than I used to. Coincidentally, I’ve actually seen more hits and fewer misses in the No Stone series since making that adjustment. Much of that has to do with my improved data knowledge and what to look for in under-the-radar prospects. But the other part of it is a more deliberate shift in my philosophy to scouting. I spend less time on college tape, particularly low/mid-major tape, during the regular season now than in years past. I’m still watching the same amount of film, but I’ve filled that gap with NBA games.
I call this practice “keeping the bar high.” Basically, by watching more NBA tape, I’m reinforcing the standard of the league in which I am projecting players to compete. At times, I’d find myself enamored with players at smaller schools. Then, I’d talk to professional evaluators about them, and they’d be lower on various elements of their game as scalable NBA skills. Since committing to the practice of keeping the bar high, I’ve found that happening less often. Additionally, it helps me get more “right” from a note taking standpoint at the moment. If I see NBA first steps every day, I know what an NBA-level first step looks like when I see one on the college floor. I’m constantly reminded of how an NBA big man gets off the floor. I’m watching how the best guards on the planet operate ball screens and see the floor. I’m paying attention to how quickly and correctly the ball moves around a professional court on a daily basis. I’m seeing what NBA bodies look like and how they withstand contact. It keeps my standards in a better place, and it helps me keep the bigger picture in mind rather than leading me to fall in love with players who might not have the NBA-level goods.
5. Give yourself grace, but keep asking questions
Nobody is going to be right 100% of the time. Sometimes, wild, unexpected things happen. It’s even more difficult doing this from the outside. My access to intel, medicals, etc. is far more limited than a standard NBA front office. Even if that weren’t the case, I’d still be bound to get things wrong. That’s the nature of the universe. Whiffs are an inevitability. But there are different ways to handle missing on a prospect. One is to beat yourself up so badly that you throw in the towel and quit. Another is to simply shrug your shoulders and keep plugging away. Personally, I think the best way is somewhere in the middle. I believe that it’s important to acknowledge my mistakes and then try to decipher why I was wrong. Sometimes, there are going to be behind the scenes factors that make doing so difficult. But in other cases, like the misses I mentioned earlier, there were clear lessons that could be taken away. By educating myself on how I screwed up, I can be better prepared to avoid similar screw-ups in the future.
Quick Hits
-Tommy Lloyd, I am begging you for more Carter Bryant minutes. The Hoop-Explorer numbers show that the team is far better when Bryant is on the court, specifically against good teams and excluding garbage time. The 6’8”, 225-pound freshman knows how to play, period. He moves the ball well and can thread needles with his passes in a way few his age and size could even consider. He’s also knocking down 37.5% of his threes on 8.0 threes per 100 possessions. Defensively, his tools, timing, and feel shine. He makes himself big laterally and slides his feet well. Off-ball, he has a great nose for passing lanes (3.4 STL%) and can turn opponents away at the rim (5.8 BLK%). Bryant doesn’t get downhill much on offense, and he doesn’t appear smooth or bursty with the rock. But his size and the framework of his game are both valuable, making him an extremely intriguing prospect. I want to see him get more reps!
-I get it. Chad Baker-Mazara will turn 26 during his rookie season. He bounced around schools and gets into some extracurriculars on the court. But there’s a real chance for him to be a great value play come draft night. The 6’8” senior is shooting 38.5% from three on 9.3 threes per 100 possessions. He also uses his bounce athleticism, quickness, and length to make plays on defense (1.3 SPG, 0.6 BPG). However, what separates CBM from his 3-and-D peers is his ball skills. He has a super slick handle with polished footwork and slippery downhill speed. When he meets resistance, he can also dig into his deep bag of counters. He’s a great passer, too, slinging 2.6 APG to 1.3 TOV. I wish his frame was more filled out, especially given his age. But it’s tough to think of skill and production boxes that CBM isn’t checking.
-UConn’s Samson Johnson has quietly gotten a lot better this year. The 6’10” senior has always made a mark as an above-the-rim finisher. This season, he’s been a much more refined and impactful defender. His 9.5 BLK% is a career-high, and he’s also greatly reduced his fouls per 100 possessions in conference play compared to last year. He’s always had the speed and bounce to make rotations and swat shots, but now, he’s playing with a greatly improved level of discipline, and it’s paying off in a big way. His 12.8 AST% and 74.5 FT% are both career highs, too. The “rim-runner, rim-protector” archetype will likely always have a place, and Johnson is emerging as an interesting one on the margins. The next step will be adding strength to his wiry frame to better compete on the glass (9.6 TRB%).
-Yale’s John Poulakidas has emerged as one of the premier snipers in college basketball. The 6’5” senior (who is also a fellow DuPage County resident, having played at Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville, Illinois) has drained 45.4% of his threes this year while launching a gaudy 7.6 attempts per game. He’s deadly spotting up but also has the quickness to get himself open off the ball and shoot off movement. Additionally, he has a crafty pull-up game, both beyond the arc and in the mid-range (46% on off-the-dribble twos and 37.8% on off-the-dribble threes per Synergy). He’s almost entirely dependent on tough shotmaking, though, as he’s only registered seven total halfcourt rim attempts this season. Defensively, he covers ground well, but he’s shaky laterally and can struggle to contain the ball. While his flaws are obvious, his prolific shooting could potentially cinch him a Portsmouth invite, and NBA teams will likely kick the tires on him during pre-draft workouts. While an overseas pro career appears most likely, few can score it like he does, and that makes it worth taking a look.
-One more shooting-oriented deep cut—John Camden, a 6’8” senior out of Delaware. He’s sinking 42.3% of his triples on 6.2 attempts per game. He’s a confident marksman who sets his feet well moving into his shot and maintains his form well against hard closeouts. Plus, he’s not bad when chased off the line. He’s physically strong at 220 pounds and can power his way to the cup. Additionally, he’s a heads-up passer who can sling some creative dishes on the go (2.0 APG to 1.3 TOV). Defensively, he uses his big frame to prevent opponents from getting to their spots, and his length makes him tough to shoot over. NBA teams will dig into why he didn’t make an impact during his stops at Memphis and Virginia Tech before finding his footing at Delaware. But the bottom line is that size, shooting, and ball movement matter, and John Camden checks those boxes.
Hey, this column isn’t over! No Ceilings+ subscribers get an additional bonus section every week! This week, I gave a full scouting report on Rasheer Fleming! I believe our track record of consistent, thoughtful work over the past three years speaks for itself. There is no better way to support the work that we do at No Ceilings than by subscribing to NC+. It’s only $8/month or $80/year, so please consider supporting the work that we do. You’ll get our pre-season draft guide, access to our Discord, this extra section of my column each week, bonus columns from our entire team, live scouting reports, and MUCH MORE!