Free during beta —Free during beta — to track favorite players + get game alertsto track favorites + alerts
ESPN
SF/PF#15 of 32 wings in 2026· Projected R2
Bryce Hopkins
Developmental wing
St. John's·6'6" · 219lb·6'11" wing·8'9" reach·9.3" hand·23.8 yo at draft·Downers Grove
Late 2nd
ATH composite
61
NCAA dominance
81
Scoring
69
Playmaking
85
Defense
53
Shooting
63
Combine
Max vertical
37.5"p73
Lane agility
10.71sp91
¾ sprint
3.26sp47
Standing reach
105.0"p59
Draft score 40 out of 100, overall rank 52.
Data completeness
grade A · 93/1007/7 combine drills · D1 stats matched (6/6) · 2 mock boards · birthdate known
measures the data backing this profile — not confidence in the ranking
Skill signature · earned from the data
percentile vs the 2026 class · at positionLockdownSynergy defense 88thGlass CleanerORB 80th · class
The read · from the percentiles
auto-derived · 2026 classDevelopmental wing. Carried by perimeter defense (88th) and rebounding (80th); the question marks are rim protection (17th) and scoring efficiency (25th).
StrengthsPerimeter defense88Rebounding80
WatchRim protection17Scoring efficiency25
Draft outlook
Where the math lands them
Projected landing
#52
LA Clippers
2nd roundModel vs the field
The One
#52
Field
#52
In line with the field — our board and the consensus agree within a couple of slots.
across 2 mock boards
Scouting summary
Developmental wing profile. The loudest scout signal: elite bpm (BPM = 98th pct). Their NCAA dominance composite lands at 81 on a 100 scale. Mock consensus pegs them 52nd across 2 boards.
Auto-generated from archetype + top deterministic chip · long-form narrative ships when the generator's AI pass is enabled.
Our board over time
Where we've had him since May 30
now#52▲ Riser · up 17
May 30 · #69Jul 27 · #52
How the score is built
deterministic · auditable39.7draft scoreboard #52
Market 62% · consensus 52nd / 2 boardsModel 38% · ranked 54th
Our blend weights the mock-consensus board 62% and our deterministic, age-adjusted model 38% — the market had Hopkins 52nd, our model 54th. The model's own dominance / production / athletic split is in the card above.
Draft score breakdown
How the 40-point composite stacks up
Athletic compositeweight 40%61
NCAA dominanceweight 40%81
Mock consensusweight 20%48
avg rank 52 across 2 boards
Deterministic signals · v1 rules
- +6
Elite BPM
BPM = 98th pct
- -2
Older for class
age 23.8 at draft; class median 22.4
Skill radar · the shape of his game
percentile vs the 2026 class · at positionAvg axis 45th · each vertex is a positional percentile in the 2026 class.
Combine radar · vs. W-bucket
7 of 7 drills measured
Wingspan
med 83.0"
82.5"
p43
Standing reach
med 104.5"
105.0"
p59
Max vertical
med 35.0"
37.5"
p73
Standing vert
med 29.5"
30.0"
p54
¾ sprint
med 3.25s
3.26s
p47
Lane agility
med 11.29s
10.71s
p91
Shuttle
med 3.04s
2.95s
p75
Frame & hands · the tape
percentile vs the 2026 class · at positionHeight
6'6"33
Wingspan diff
+4.5"72
Hand length
9.25"83
Hand width
10.00"67
Wingspan differential = wingspan − barefoot height (the “ape index”); a positive number means longer than tall. Combine measurements, percentile vs the 2026 class at the position.
Combine drills · controlled setting
percentile vs the 2026 class · at positionShooting & agility at the combine
Modified agility
2.95s53
via stats.nba.com draft combine · shooting at the college 3PT distance (makes / attempts)
Two-way profile · how they play
Synergy · per possession · St. John's Red Storm48 / 100 two-way score
Offense
1.04 PPP25
Defense
0.80 allow88
Shot dieteFG 51%3PT rate 25%FT rate 4%
Hopkins's offensive + defensive efficiency vs the 2026 class, per Synergy possessions.
NBA comps · measurables + production
vs wings · 2011–2021Closest NBA comparisons
Matched on combine measurements (length, frame, explosion, agility) and college production (BPM, TS%, usage, assists), within position group. Each comp's tag shows which basis drove it; the college production + career outcome shown belongs to the comp, never projected onto Hopkins.
“Top X%” = closer to Hopkins than (100−X)% of all drafted wings on the measurables + production; the bar shows relative closeness among these 5.
- 1Dorian Finney-Smith2016top 1%
measurables + production · matched on 9 of 9 measurables · 5 of 4 production
Became: Never reached the NBA · 0 g
College: Florida '16 · TS 56.9 · BPM 8.7
¾ sprint3.26svs3.27sReach105.0"vs105.5"Ht6'6"vs6'7"Weight219 lbvs213 lbShuttle2.95svs3.04sMax vert37.5"vs35.5"Wing82.5"vs83.8"Agility10.71svs11.01sStd vert30.0"vs32.5"AST%12.7vs13.2USG%22.0vs22.4TS%55.8vs56.9Age23.8vs23.1BPM6.6vs8.7 - 2Taurean Prince2016top 1%
measurables + production · matched on 9 of 9 measurables · 6 of 4 production
Became: Rotation player · -0.3 career VORP · 608 g
College: Baylor '16 · TS 53.7 · BPM 5.9
Weight219 lbvs220 lb¾ sprint3.26svs3.24sHt6'6"vs6'7"Max vert37.5"vs36.0"Wing82.5"vs83.5"Agility10.71svs10.96sShuttle2.95svs2.80sReach105.0"vs102.0"Std vert30.0"vs34.0"BPM6.6vs5.9PORPAG3.5vs3.8TS%55.8vs53.7AST%12.7vs15.4Age23.8vs22.3USG%22.0vs27.2 - 3Kyle Singler2011top 3%
measurables + production · matched on 8 of 9 measurables · 6 of 4 production
Became: Rotation player · -0.9 career VORP · 356 g
College: Duke '11 · TS 53.6 · BPM 5.8
Wing82.5"vs82.1"Ht6'6"vs6'8"¾ sprint3.26svs3.21sReach105.0"vs106.0"Weight219 lbvs228 lbAgility10.71svs11.22sMax vert37.5"vs30.0"Std vert30.0"vs23.0"BPM6.6vs5.8USG%22.0vs23.5Age23.8vs23.1TS%55.8vs53.6AST%12.7vs8.8PORPAG3.5vs4.5 - 4Kyle Kuzma2017top 4%
measurables + production · matched on 9 of 9 measurables · 6 of 4 production
Became: Starter · 1.8 career VORP · 610 g
College: Utah '17 · TS 56.3 · BPM 5.3
Agility10.71svs10.72s¾ sprint3.26svs3.25sShuttle2.95svs2.98sWeight219 lbvs223 lbHt6'6"vs6'8"Wing82.5"vs84.3"Std vert30.0"vs27.0"Max vert37.5"vs34.0"Reach105.0"vs107.5"TS%55.8vs56.3PORPAG3.5vs4.0BPM6.6vs5.3AST%12.7vs15.0USG%22.0vs26.7Age23.8vs21.9 - 5Sam Hauser2021top 2%
measurables + production · matched on 9 of 9 measurables · 6 of 4 production
Became: Never reached the NBA · 0 g
College: Virginia '21 · TS 63.5 · BPM 7.5
Weight219 lbvs217 lbHt6'6"vs6'7"Std vert30.0"vs28.5"Wing82.5"vs81.3"¾ sprint3.26svs3.34sShuttle2.95svs3.07sMax vert37.5"vs34.5"Agility10.71svs11.14sReach105.0"vs102.0"USG%22.0vs22.2Age23.8vs23.6AST%12.7vs11.6BPM6.6vs7.5PORPAG3.5vs5.4TS%55.8vs63.5
Per-axis gap● near (under ½ SD)● ~1 SD● far (over 1 SD)
Comp outcomes · real careers
9/12 reached the NBAHow the closest comps turned out
1 Star1 Starter5 Rotation2 Fringe3 Never reached NBA
Median outcome: Rotation — the typical case among these comps, between the floor and ceiling.
Ceiling
Paul George2010
Star · 9× All-Star
Floor
Matthew Mayer2022
Never reached NBA
The 15 nearest blended comps (3 too recent to grade). These are the comps' own careers — a range of what the profile has become before, not a projection of Hopkins.
College teamSt. John'sBE#10 T-Rank30-7SOS elite schedule · top 3%via BartTorvik
College stats · 2025-26 season
St. John's· BE
37 games · 72% min
labeled Wing G
Efficiency
- TS%55.8%73
- eFG%51.4%66
- USG%22.0%76
- ORTG116.891
- AdjOE127.397
- RIM%56.8%42
Playmaking
- AST%12.7%77
- TO%11.3%86
Defense
- STL%2.1%67
- BLK%0.9%47
- DRTG93.292
- DBPM+2.994
Rebounding
- ORB%7.3%81
- DRB%16.4%81
Composite
- BPM+6.697
- OBPM+3.794
- PORPAG3.595
via BartTorvik · percentiles vs W-bucket of all D1 history (2008-26)
Per-game production · 2025-26
percentile vs D1 2008-25 · at position37 games· 28.8 mpg
Points
13.689
Rebounds
6.294
Assists
1.988
Steals
1.186
Blocks
0.369
ShootingFG 46.9%3PT 36.3%FT 71.3%
per-game · via barttorvik · percentiles vs all D1 2008-25 at the position
Raw per-game counts — not pace-adjusted; ranked against an 18-season D1 reference where elite-tier percentiles are stable across the window.
X-factor · Risk · Scheme fit
Long-form scouting prose ships when the generator's AI narrative pass is enabled. The deterministic chip list above carries the same information as structured signals.
Generated by deterministic-v3-ageadj-consensus · Jun 25, 2026
Get the 2027 big board the day it drops
Plus pick-by-pick grades on draft night — and we grade our own board against the actual draft, misses included. Free, double opt-in.