1) Besides Ja Morant and perhaps Jaxson Hayes, Jarrett Culver is the biggest riser in this year’s draft as an almost sure thing top 20 pick were he to declare, almost regardless of what goes on the rest of the season.

2) A lot of this is because Jarrett Culver not only knows how to play (fairly rare), plays with intuition (also fairly rare) and is reasonably skilled in most of the areas of the game that are important (shooting-passing-dribbling-defense), but also because Culver has noticeably gone through a growth spurt since he entered college, now standing anywhere between 6-foot-6 and 6-foot-8.

3) If Culver is growing, of course he could continue to grow. At 6-foot-10, a player with these kinds of skills would be a force to be reckoned with, since NBA defenses aren’t equipped to deal with skilled centers and power forwards who can dribble, pass and shoot. And Culver would also be legitimately big enough to defend power forward, and even center in certain scenarios. Think about a player like Toni Kukoc or Hedo Turkoglu being the floor in this scenario.

However, if Culver stops growing at 6-foot-6, 6-foot-7 or 6-foot-8, the players to which he compares in terms of athleticism and skill generally aren’t as good as the players to which he’ll be compared on draft twitter, whoever they may be. That’s not to say they are bad players. It is to say that relatively unathletic (for the NBA) secondary handlers who play noticeably worse against athletic players generally continue to be bothered by athleticism as they progress to even more advanced levels.

4) We’re not talking about tall, athletic, initiators with supreme first step athleticism. We’re not talking Paul George or Grant Hill or Scottie Pippen or Manu Ginobili or Alex English or Mark Aguirre or Brandon Roy or Vince Carter or Paul Pierce or Ray Allen or DeMar DeRozan or Kobe Bryant or Anfernee Hardaway or Andre Iguodala or Paul Pressey or Tracy McGrady or Lebron James or Michael Jordan, or even Reggie Theus. We can just remove all of them from consideration, as well as any other tall dribble-pass-shoot guy that could be said to have upper tier athleticism.

Due to high turnovers versus good competition and the reasons behind them, we’re also likely not talking about players like Gordon Hayward or Jimmy Butler or Kawhi Leonard.*

Nor are we talking about players like Chris Mullin or Klay Thompson or Joe Ingles or Reggie Miller who could be listed amongst the best shooters of all time.

The list rather is comprised of players like Steve Smith, Joe Johnson, Jimmy Jackson, Richard Hamilton, Walter Davis, Brent Barry, Jalen Rose, Tomas Satoransky, Alexey Shved, Tyreke Evans, late career Shaun Livingston, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Michael Carter-Williams, Caris LeVert, Marko Jaric, Brandon Ingram, Danny Green, Evan Turner and Kyle Anderson.

5) We look at Culver and say he’s unique. There aren’t many like him, and on a year to year basis it’s true, but if you’ve been watching long enough you’ve likely seen similar stories before. And though Culver could possibly break into a different narrative, he currently fits very well into the one I’ve spun above, not just on tape but by per 40 statistics.

6) Let’s look at this table in several different arrangements. By assists, a table that indicates that the best way to use these players, if possible, might by in the role of power forward offense.

7) By stocks. This is not always the case but the better players of this type do usually have more than Culver. Definitely not an end all be all, yet still a possibly important indicator.



8) By points. Which shows, as we already know, that scoring doesn’t always translate in the ways we might think.

9) By feel score. Which indicates that Culver has solid but nowhere close to historically elite feel. Which is potentially fine. Culver’s score is similar to that of Jimmy Butler and Kawhi Leonard, but those two players as super low turnover guys and elite defenders did have more avenues to big time success coming out of college.

10) Who are the players that Culver seems the most similar to? Probably Chandler Parsons (stats not included), Jimmy Jackson, Jalen Rose, Joe Johnson, Steve Smith, Reece Gaines, Mardy Collins, with a little Francisco Garcia, Khris Middleton (also not included) and Evan Turner thrown in for good measure.

11) Do you see a pattern here with the players chosen in the top 5 or in the lottery? Steve Smith picked 5th. Jimmy Jackson picked 4th. Evan Turner picked 2nd. Joe Johnson picked 9th. Jalen Rose picked 13th.

These players didn’t generally become the players the league thought they would become. Steve Smith was a primary on a terrible Miami Heat team before becoming an off ball shooter for Portland and San Antonio. Jimmy Jackson had a long and solid career as journeyman wing. Evan Turner is another journeyman. Joe Johnson had the reverse career of Steve Smith, starting off as an off ball shooter for a very good team before becoming a primary who was selected to all-star games leading wholly mediocre teams. And then Jalen Rose, another tall college point guard who was best as an off ball shooter.

That’s the most likely pathway to value on an excellent team for Culver.

12) It’s not all that different for the players chosen later of this type, though we think of them more fondly because they were “draft steals”. I’m talking here about Khris Middleton and Chandler Parsons.

13) The one potential difference is defensively, where Culver might have a better projection than a fair few of those guys and that’s important to keep in mind, but offensively, this is the upside ballpark we are almost certainly talking about.

14) You’ll notice going through the entire list of players, not just the ones with college stats, that several of these players became primary initiators in the NBA: Steve Smith, Joe Johnson, Brent Barry, Tyreke Evans and Shaun Livingston. Though it should be pointed out that none of them were primaries on anything more than a mediocre team.

15) You’ll notice that several of these players played for champions or real deal contenders: Steve Smith, Brent Barry, Joe Johnson, Richard Hamilton, Danny Green and Shaun Livingston. Indeed, this list closely mirrors the primary initiator list. Here’s the thing, they were generally in very different roles when they played for competitive teams. Smith, Barry and Johnson were all off ball shooters who had to curtail their game to fit the offense, essentially allowing them to up their efficiency. Livingston was a backup point guard.

16) Thus, the upsides of the players on this list tend to be a bit lower than we might at first expect. And that’s including Brent Barry, an all-time shooter to whom we probably shouldn’t be comparing Culver.

We’re talking +2 or maybe, in a career year, +3 on a good team. That’s not the kind of offensive number you get from difference makers unless these players also happen to be all-time defenders. A guy like Iguodala as an example.

17) Nor will you find these types of players on championship caliber teams in major offensive roles unless they happen to defend (which Culver does and is likely to continue doing.) Richard Hamilton is an example… on one of the worst championship offenses ever.

18) So what are we looking at with Jarrett Culver?

Best case scenario: he is still growing, ends up 6-foot-10, strong, and able to defend as a power forward and small ball center. Also able to run offense in Love/Dray role. Beyond that, initiation plays better with longer strides and advantages verse a fair number of players. Shooting over the top of just about anyone.

Top 90th percentile outcome or better: Ends up being a Khris Middleton level difficult shot-maker but with potentially more useful, more versatile on ball defense. The Oklahoma game was one in which Culver looked very much akin to Sophomore year Khris Middleton. Though Culver is noticeably better at attacking the rim at the college level.

Khris Middleton’s numbers that year:

Top 75th percentile outcome: Peak Chandler Parsons or Peak Steve Smith.

Chandler Parsons college numbers:

50th percentile outcome: Worse shooting Jimmy Jackson or Jalen Rose. Evan Turner.

25th percentile: Does it matter?

19) Shooting the basketball is absolutely a swing skill for Culver. And there’s three different levels to consider. First, he doesn’t shoot at an outstanding level, except for perhaps a peak season or two. This player doesn’t end up being particular special.

Second, he becomes an outstanding catch and shoot guy and perhaps off dribble guy who can’t create space the needs consistently/create at the level of the league’s best. This is the Chandler Parsons/Steve Smith outcome.

Third, it doesn’t matter that Culver can’t create space because he can make difficult shots with the best of them. The Khris Middleton-plus outcome.

20) It’s less than ten years ago and it’s like we’ve already forgotten Evan Turner.

Jarrett Culver has more than a passing similarity to Turner in more than a few ways. College threshold athlete who will be average at best in the NBA. College drives which won’t work in NBA without a legit pull-up jumper. Excellent rebounder for size. Excellent passer/playmaker for size. Loose handle. Suffers when pressured by real athletes. Prone to turnovers because of these factors. Questionable pro scoring ability despite college success.

21) I’m not saying that Culver will definitely end up like Evan Turner. I’m saying that if Culver doesn’t continue to grow and/or improve his shot, both of which are possible, he will definitely end up like Evan Turner. And that’s really why parts of the NBA don’t like Culver as much as draft twitter. He’s nowhere near the sure thing he’s made out to be. And his upside almost certainly isn’t as good as its made out to be, at least, not without some semi-unexpected improvement. Improvements we can see avenues for but just aren’t all that likely.

* Consider how Culver’s assists have dropped and turnovers have spiked in conference play (3.5 per 40 and 4.4 per 40 respectively) and also consider how Culver’s struggles versus more competitive athletes early were obvious enough that I was able to predict something like this would happen. Evan Turner and Michael Carter-Williams are good players to look at here, in terms of how struggles in this manner versus competition were predictive of struggles later on.