This guy is pretty interesting, and not just because he shares a barber with Clarence Williams III.
Very good size for an off-guard, and has some skills that place him squarely in the off-guard position. Has some shake to his handle. Makes good decisions as a passer. Pretty skilled. Can pass, dribble, post, run a PnR. Good finisher. Possesses explosiveness, touch, and body control.
You might notice that while Bembry scores a lot at the rim for an off guard (38.3% of his FGAs come there), his "%ast'd at the rim" figure is a bit high (44%). One thing I have noticed (and this applies to a guy like Denzel Valentine as well) is that there are some college teams that are actually very well coached, and those teams generally do not have guys with very low "%ast'd at rim" numbers. From what I saw St. Joseph's is a really well coached team on both sides of the ball. I think if you watch Bembry play though you come away with a favorable opinion of his slashing abilities.
Bembry's shot is really inconsistent, and I don't just mean in the results. Sometimes it looks like a nice shot, others it looks like he's pushing the ball with his arm too much and not using enough wrist.
Really tries defensively. Has good quickness. His team was pretty good defensively while not having a starter larger than 6'7'', 225 lbs.
CEILING: Lance Stephenson if he were not nuts
MEZZANINE: Carlos Delfino
FLOOR: Marquis Daniels
Very good spot up 3pt shooter. Is that it? No. He's also good at not being old yet.
It's a troubling profile though. He's a bad slasher. I think his court vision might be poor, but it is hard to tell because his handle is so underdeveloped. Does not make good decisions in transition. I don't like guards of whom that is true.
Merely so-so steal rate, especially for someone who gambles as much as he does. Falls for so many head and ball fakes. Partly why he is so bad at containing penetration and performing proper closeouts. Fake a shot and you can blow right by him every time.
He does not look good defensively; but his whole team looked really bad on that end, and their bigs stunk. I wonder if he was just very poorly coached?
I would feel better about him if I felt he were a really good athlete. I'm not sure he'll walk into the NBA as even an average athlete for the SG position.
CEILING: Maurice Evans
MEZZANINE: Matt Carroll
FLOOR: Daequan Cook
I've tried to make these profiles more informative than polemical, but..... Here's the argument for this guy as articulated by draftexpress:
His supporters point to the difficulties all NBA teams are finding currently in acquiring shot-making wing players with length who can also create their own offense, and think their coaching staff can tone down the freshman's fearless style with their player development system.
He cannot, in any meaningful sense, do any of the things mentioned in this sentence right now. In fact he seems quite a distance away from being able to do so.
More importantly though, isn't this argument almost laughably blind to the human element? It's funny that analytics people always get criticized for the arrogance of their abstractions, because this very scouty idea about totally overhauling Richardson's style of play is worse than anything this side of Dave Berri.
I mean let's assume for one moment that Malachi Richardson is a normal, rational person. There is this way he's been playing basketball for quite some time, probably his whole life (look back at his DX high school profile from 2013: the same bad habits are there too). Playing this style got him into one of the best basketball schools in the country. Playing this style helped get his team to the Final Four. Playing this style has gotten him to the edge of the 1st round of the NBA draft.
So now, once he's drafted, once he's making like $500,000 a year, you're going to tell him, "Oh hey, Malachi. I know life has been sending you a lot of signals that you're doing great, but actually what we want you to do is totally change the way you do everything. How does that sound?"
Even if he is a great guy, why would he listen to you? Why should he listen to you?
CEILING: Marshon Brooks
MEZZANINE: Jordan McRae
CEILING: Tolkienesque forest deity
MEZZANINE: Tolkienesque stone deity
FLOOR: Tolkienesque frogurt deity
Before we begin, a couple framing points:
1) If you are looking at unadjusted numbers, note that Washington played at the 2nd fastest pace in the country this year so all of the raw numbers are going to be inflated.
2) "Versatility" is so modish right now, there will probably be some talk about how Murray can be either a PG or a SG, no doubt partially facilitated by Murray's agent. That is not true. He's a SG.
One thing I like a lot about him is that unlike some other players known for their flashy style of play, Murray plays really hard. And fearlessly. I don't think he was officiated very well. He threw himself into the bodies of guys a lot in the paint with no call.
Plays almost panicked when he gets below the foul line or in transition. I really don't like that out of a guard. Murray is constantly forcing the issue, and not all of that is just him being aggressive. It's hard to tell if that is a skill or BBIQ problem.
His shot is not good. He often shoots with his feet right next to each other, and he looks like a right-handed Josh Smith when he does that. His off-the-dribble stuff is really bad. Just one reason I say he is not a PG.
Made a ton of his floaters this year. Is that luck, or a real skill? If that drops from 45 FG% down to a more realistic 40%, then he might go from an extremely inefficient player to an almost undraftably inefficient player.
He is so skinny. Pat McCaw is skinny too, but at least he has some muscle and broad shoulders. Dejounte Murray is a stick insect. It's hard to imagine he will have enough strength to defend even guards at the NBA level. Especially if his lack of strength leads to him getting tired having to shoulder a large offensive load. And that's why he's being drafted, right? For his offensive creativity?
CEILING: Alec Burks
MEZZANINE: Jordan Crawford
FLOOR: Archie Goodwin
Stats will either be from hoop-math.com or DX.com or sports-reference.com.