The date is June 23, 2016. A young man in a tight black dress shirt settles in the center of a crowd, cameras aimed at him, microphone in hand. The room, appearing to be a bar, could easily melt into the dead of night if not for the harsh neon red lights, the contagious, likely alcohol-fueled energy of the audience, and the unflappable confidence of our protagonist, Fred VanVleet, NBA draft hopeful, who, after a short speech, affirmed through the cheers of the crowd, “It wouldn’t really make sense for my story if I did get picked.” But why was it so simple? What factors prophesied the Rockford-native’s unfortunate outcome? Did reality justify his destiny?

In an attempt to answer these questions and many more, this piece will recount the story of Fred VanVleet and the NBA Draft, the story of his fellow low-draft picks, of regretful basketball decision makers, and, more importantly, the story of a market inefficiency that repeatedly undervalues basketball’s most cerebral artists.

Fred VanVleet, 5'11, Wichita State, left his senior season as an undeniable legend of the program, a consistently productive force that topped the Shockers’ all-time assists, steals, and assist-to-turnover ratio leaderboard, in addition to guiding the school to an unbeaten 31–0 regular season as a sophomore. VanVleet was far from perfect, but his statistical profile was unprecedented, sharply crafted to appeal to the hardened Moneyball-enthusiast. Kevin Pelton, in a pre-draft article, stated, “Despite the stereotype that statistical projections hurt experienced prospects, it’s VanVleet and not any of the promising freshmen who come out best by WARP. He ranks in the top 25 percent of NBA-bound point guards in six categories: free throw rate, rebounding, assists, steals, turnover rate, and avoiding fouls.” However, these undeniable statistical feats were not enough to entice a single franchise to take a chance on the 22-year-old, the reasons for this though were obvious, not simply his age, but as Chad Ford explains in the very same article, “…his lack of size and elite athletic ability really give scouts pause. It’s hard to be lacking in both of those at his position.” This, however, was justified. Fred VanVleet was entering a league increasingly enamoured with size. Case in point, the first overall pick of this very same draft was a 6'10 point guard, who himself deserves his own article. However, what these scouts and GMs failed to consider was that the lilliputian VanVleet’s statistical profile was not simply a reflection of a polished point guard; it was a reflection of a player with an outlier feel for the game, of a basketball IQ crafted for the highest echelon of success, to say he did not even deserve a chance highlights an undeniable, still pervading market inefficiency, that undervalues feel, basketball IQ, and the predictive powers of key statistical indicators for draft prospects. Fred VanVleet is the first data point in this trend, becoming an all-star, a champion, and a $40 million a year man; however, further evidence and key statistical benchmarks are required to validate such a conclusion.

Key Statistical Indicators of Feel:

1. AST/TOV: Reflects the ability to make polished reads and swiftly process the game.
2. STL%: Exhibits the ability to intelligently rotate off-ball and disrupt passing lanes (incredibly valuable).
3. FC/40: Signals disciplined and polished defense.
4. TS%: Highlights scorers with a keen understanding of space, timing, and value.

As has been demonstrated by several draft models, these statistical indicators have a reasonable correlation with NBA success, supporting the argument that feel and basketball IQ are suggestive of future NBA success.

Larger Sample Sizes:

Low Feel, High Pick vs High Feel, Low Pick:

It is common knowledge that higher picks procure substantially greater value than lower picks, yet if one were to sort through college player data since 2008 and filter players for key high feel indicators, top 20 picks with incredibly substandard feel indicators and lower picks with statistically impressive feel, appear to result in similarly productive NBA careers. Evidently, this data is not ideal; the sample size for the high feel group is slightly greater, and some players find themselves in drastically separate groups whilst only being divided by a few picks. Yet, this data retains value in highlighting the statistically unexpected return on investment provided by drafting high-IQ players, particularly at lower picks. Nevertheless, the most damning feature of this analysis is the “bust” rate derived from this low feel query and more importantly the true cognitive abilites of these supposed low feel success stories.

All but one of the top eight picks that fit this low feel query never attained positive NBA value, while also becoming poster boys for poor draft day decision-making. Furthermore, all but one of these supposed low IQ athletes revealed either outlier feel development (Randle) or statistical miscategorization (Sabonis) as low feel players.

Ultimately, based on this evidence, whether for guards or bigs, it is undeniable that IQ and feel are key predictors of NBA success and instrumental to any form of value as one climbs the basketball ladder. Unless, of course, you are Myles Turner. Organizations should be incredibly fearful of investing high draft picks in this particular archetype.

Further Case Studies:

Ty Jerome and Payton Pritchard:

In the mold of their Wichita predecessor, although with a few added inches, these two upperclassmen, drafted 24th and 26th, respectively, were statistical marvels in the feel category, excelling in the predictive indicators previously expounded upon. Their lower draft selection, just as for VanVleet, came down to less-than-ideal physical characteristics, as The Ringer detailed in their 2016 Draft Guide when describing the future Cavalier, “Talented playmaker and shooter who moves at 3G, but his mind calculates actions on the floor at 5G.” Fortunately, for these two, physically concerning or not, as their minutes and usage climbed, so did their production. This led to breakout 2024–25 seasons where both ended in the top three of 6MOY voting, with some of the most team-friendly contracts in basketball, and statistical outputs which look to translate well to even greater usage.

Draymond Green:

The cerebral leader of one of basketball’s greatest dynasties, the enabler of the NBA’s newest defensive revolution, and the 2010s answer to Bill Russell, for all the superlatives, Saginaw’s number 23 has nevertheless always remained somewhat underrated, undervalued by the casual fan, often painted, unreasonably, as Steph Curry’s confrontational enforcer. This undervaluation, however, is not a modern trend; it is reflected in his past draft evaluation. Although not for his on-court antics, NBA evaluators blinded by Draymond’s shorter frame failed to recognize his outlier cognitive abilities, as he states, “When I came into the league, I fell in the draft because their №1 question was what position would I guard.” Fortunately, Draymond proved them wrong, developing into basketball’s foremost chess piece, able to guard one through five. Certainly, scouts underestimated the value of Green’s outlier 7'1 wingspan. Yet, his fall to the 35th pick is a textbook example of traditional physical traits concealing exceptional feel predictors (>1 AST/TO, >3 STL%), particularly for a big. Cognitive predictors don't simply apply to guards; they are integral to wing and big men evaluation, which is incredibly true for the final case study.

Nikola Jokic:

The Taco Bell commercial, the horses, and the general demeanour, Nikola Jokic’s story has entered pop culture at the same rate as he has the pantheon of NBA greats. What appears to many as an irregularity, a case of exceptional growth, a second-round pick who attained greatness for mystical, unexplainable reasons, exists as the most valuable piece of evidence in favour of valuing high-feel draft prospects. And few were so ahead of the curve at the time as “Dean On Draft”, writing in 2014, “…frankly I can’t fathom why anybody should rather have Julius Randle than Jokic. Randle is just as slow mentally as Jokic is physically, except instead of being center sized he’s an undersized PF. It shows in steal + block rates, with Jokic’s per 40 rates crushing Randle’s (1.1/1.4 vs 0.6/1.0) in spite of playing in a tougher league.” If one were to sort for college players since 2008 with Jokic’s feel stats (>2.3 AST/TO, >1 STL%) not a single center emerges.

Obviously, nobody could have predicted Jokic’s all-time trajectory; nevertheless, considering the predictive value of all-time great feel for a 19-year-old in a tough league, it is obvious that the three-time MVP’s greatness was far from a preternatural occurrence.

What The Hali: Draft Lessons from the 2025 Playoffs

Indiana & OKC:

TOV%:

OKC - 11.6% (1st)

IND - 12.7% (3rd)

Forced TOV:

OKC - 18.0 (1st)

IND - 14.2 (5th)

Basketball’s premier collectives are both elite at the high feel predictive indicators previously enumerated, basing their game around these principles with almost exclusively players of high basketball IQ.

Rare are the players that can productively exist on the biggest stage, and this is especially the case with the star, game-changing players. Even as freshmen, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and Tyrese Haliburton demonstrated the high cognitive abilities imperative to NBA translation. Haliburton, particularly, even with his absurd combination of IQ and college production, was underrated during the draft process because of a combination of athletic and aesthetic concerns. Ultimately, if these current playoffs have taught draft evaluators anything, it’s that winning basketball is high feel basketball, and draft decisions should reflect this.

Applying Lessons to 2025 Draft Evaluation:

High Feel, Undervalued Prospects:

Freshman Phenoms:

Jase Richardson and Kon Knueppel are the obvious favourites of a feel query. Freshmen with polished profiles (+AST/TOV, +TS%) that scale well to top 50 competition, clear top-10 prospects in my eyes which should not be undervalued because of exaggerated physical concerns.

Collin Murray-Boyles:

Draymond-lite had to be on the list. The myriad of greens on Murray-Boyle’s statistical profile is not simply a site to behold, but an undeniable indicator of a player with an outlier feel for the game. If CMB somehow fails to return NBA value, another article would certainly be due.

Star Returnees:

A freshman and a junior, respectively, Labaron Philon and Bennett Stirtz demonstrate excellent production in key predictive indicators and clear top-10 picks prospects for next year’s draft.

Senior Snipers:

Although age is a key parameter for draft evaluation, particularly when considering development curves, it is evident that high-feel upper-classmen retain extreme value even in the upper echelons of the NBA draft. I believe champion Walter Clayton Jr. and his fellow shooter Max Shulga can follow in the footsteps of former, older, productive NBA players.

Low Feel, Overvalued Prospects:

Although feel is not the be-all and end-all of the draft evaluation, it certainly brings up significant concerns for potential lottery picks that fail to fit the parameters of high IQ basketball that are so important in the modern NBA. Thus, here are three freshmen who, although clearly valuable NBA prospects, demonstrate obvious faults that should concern organizations picking in the lottery.

Ace Bailey: Low AST/TO, slightly concerning STL% for his athletic gifts, net zero DBPM even with outlier BLK%. Would not recommend in the top 5 where he is frequently mocked.

Khaman Maluach: Horrible AST% and STL% reminiscent of previous busts at the center position. However special TS% numbers, low USG, and two-way ability offer leeway, helping him retain top 7 value.

Asa Newell: Concerning AST/TO and DBPM for a tweener, supposed two-way prospect, however production against top 50 competition likely helps him retain top 20 value.

In conclusion, always draft high feel.

TaouTi