SportiveWorldSportiveWorld
Dame Sarr

Dame Sarr

Duke Blue Devils · NCAA Division I · Shooting guard/Small forward · Freshman · 2.03 m

SportiveWorld evaluation

SW#48Projection Round 2Modelled
Potential · LimitedConfidence · HighMarket #40·SW 81

Main reading

Our lenses point lower: #37 on his signals alone, #35 by comparables.

Freshness · CurrentDaily board snapshot: 2026-09-20 (matches the computation value by value: rank, score, consensus, Δ, sample) · 7 day(s) of history · Mocks captured: 2026-09-20 · Box scores up to 2026-04-07 (season 2025-26: 38 of the team's 38 games) · Board computed on 2026-09-20 15:05 UTC · served from cache (4 min ago; recomputed every hour)

Why he is here

#24
NCAA model · of 39
27 %
NBA career prob.
NCAA model · Model weight in his rank: 67 %
Looks too highMedium convictionReliability · highProfile · Rotation wing

The NCAA model places him #24 of 39 — and our own lenses point lower: #37 on his signals alone, #35 by comparables. The rank rests on the environment. Market: #40.

Measured over 38 games with a box score · 2025-26 · Duke Blue Devils

  • fact27 % probability of an NBA career (≥ 2,000 min). On the model's scale: context +4.63 · player −0.71. With average opponent and team, the same profile would give 0.4 %; on the environment alone, 43 %.
  • factMeasured environment: Duke Blue Devils, strength +18.0 (+2.7 sd) · average opponent +5.8 (+2.4 sd) — environment #5 of 39 ranked
  • factHis individual signal adding the most: Shot volume per 40 9.3 (−0.8 sd · contribution +0.28). On his individual signals alone he would be #37 of 39.
  • factHistorical comparables: 12 of 300 similar university seasons reached the NBA (4 %) — #35 of 36 ranked in that lens. The model gives him 56 % to reach the NBA: the comparables are more conservative than the model for all 36 ranked, which is why this lens compares ranks, not figures.

interpretationTwo independent in-house lenses point lower than our rank: without the environment he drops and the historical comparables do not follow. It is the sign that the model is crediting him with the quality of his team and schedule.

Production
−0.93
Efficiency
+0.42
Minutes
−0.20
Opponent quality + Team strength
+4.63
0.4 %
On his signals alone
43 %
On his environment alone
#37
Rank on his signals alone

Where the rank comes from: how much his individual signals contribute and how much his environment (model scale). Below, the probability with an average opponent and team, and the probability on the environment alone.

MovementVersus the 2026-09-13 snapshot: #47 → #48 (-1) · NCAA model #23 → #24. · The earlier snapshot carried no board rank (pre-V3.2): recomputed with today's rule on its rows.

Potential

Categorical reading of the ceiling the accredited evidence supports. Not a score: it starts from the NCAA model (if any) or from the market prior and only moves one level with our own evidence, declared piece by piece.

Potential · LimitedConfidence · High

factStarts from the NCAA model: 27% probability of an NBA career (#24 of 39 measured).Medium

  • The market (#40) does not disagree with the model enough to move the reading.
  • On his individual signals alone he would be #37 of 39 (≥ 8 places worse than his model #24): his rank rests on the environment. Down one level.

Evidence moves the reading one level at most, in the direction the sum of the evidence pushes. · Confidence: NCAA season with ≥ 15 games with a box score and ≥ 60% of the team's games.

Production

2025-26 · Duke Blue Devils · 6.4p · 3.8r · 1.1a · 23.5 min · 38 of 38 games with a box score · TS 51.9 %

By opponent level

Per 40 minutes, over the games with a box score. Small samples within one season: read as a hint, not a verdict.

pjW-Lminpts/40reb/40ast/40tov/40TS
2025-263823.510.96.51.91.851.9 %
Opponents +8 or better1311-225.88.86.21.81.451.1 %
Other opponents2524-122.212.26.71.92.052.2 %
Postseason76-130.39.66.02.30.951.7 %
Away / neutral1211-122.913.46.81.52.259.2 %

Strengths

Signals that add the most

Opponent quality +5.8 (+2.4 SD)
+2.33
Team strength +18.0 (+2.7 SD)
+2.30
Shot volume per 40 9.3 (−0.8 SD)
+0.28

What travels: holds up against strong opponents

An individual signal is transferable if it holds against opponents rated +8 or better (≥ 90% of its season value). What evaporates as the level rises is stated.

Risks and what would change our mind

Signals that subtract

Scoring per 40 10.9 (−1.0 SD)
−0.88
Minutes per game 23.5 min (−0.3 SD)
−0.20
  • Comparables: only 12 of 300 historical analogues reached the NBA

Would make us move him down

  • The performance not travelling: without the Duke Blue Devils environment his signals leave him #37 of 39
  • The shot not holding up: 32.3 % from three with 64 % of his attempts from outside
  • The comparables: only 4 % of 300 similar seasons reached the NBA (#35 in that lens)
  • More sources consolidating the consensus #40

Would make us move him up

  • More efficiency: today TS 51.9 % (−0.7 sd versus the cohort)
  • More scoring per 40 min: today 10.9 (−1.0 sd)
  • Combine measurements (wingspan, reach, athleticism): we do not have them today
  • The same performance in another context (another role, a team other than Duke Blue Devils): it would separate the player from his environment

What to watch until the Draft

  • The 2026-27 season: every new box score is measured and can move the rank
  • The 2027 Combine (May): wingspan, reach and athleticism we do not have today
  • The mocks: captured daily; today the consensus is 2 source(s)
  • His minutes (23.5 per game): a drop would show in the box score before any news

Context

Facts derived from the box score (Basketball-Reference formulas over the games he played) and the standings. No film or tracking data.

Role on his team

  • ·Started 30 of 38 games (79%) · 23.5 min (59% of the available minutes)
  • ·Usage 15.9% of his team's possessions while on the floor · 13% of its points
  • ·Creation: assists 7.6% of his teammates' baskets while on the floor · 1.10 assists per turnover · 14.5% of his possessions end in a turnover
  • ·Team record with him on the floor: 35-3 · estimated pace 67.0 possessions per 40 min

His team and schedule

  • ·Duke Blue Devils · Atlantic Coast Conference · 29-2 in the standings · 17-1 in conference
  • ·Latest poll: Coaches Poll, week 21, #4 (35-3)
  • ·Postseason with a box score: 7 games, 4 in the NCAA Tournament (up to Elite Eight)
  • ·Team strength +18.0 (+2.7 sd in the cohort) · average opponent +5.8 (+2.4 sd): the model's two context signals

Development

2025-26
Duke Blue Devils
6.4p · 3.8r · 1.1a · 23.5 min · TS 51.9 %
38 of 38 games with a box score
27 %

No earlier season in our base: nothing to compare against.

Comparables and outlook (Scout)

Similarity of one season's statistical profile (12 axes per 40 minutes), not of playing style. 'Looks like X' means 'his season resembles it on these axes', nothing more.

fact12 of the 300 university seasons most like his 2025-26 reached the NBA (4 %) · statistical archetype: Rotation wing

Ceiling
Khris Middleton
25,278 NBA min · pick #39
Expected
Paul Watson
536 NBA min · undrafted
Floor
Xavier Sneed
86 NBA min · undrafted

NBA twins · what they share

DeAndre Liggins d 1.43 · 1,910 NBA minScoring per 40 −1.0 · Share of threes +1.0 · Shot volume per 40 −0.9
Christian Braun d 1.46 · 6,911 NBA minShare of threes +1.2
Jack McVeigh d 1.65 · 44 NBA minShare of threes +1.2 · Scoring per 40 −0.9

Computed on 2025-26 (38 games) · 2026-09-13

Combine

No Combine measurements: he does not appear in the 2024-2026 combines (or does not match uniquely by name). The physique above is what his programme lists, not a measurement.

Market vs SportiveWorld

Outside reference: the rank given by the cited publications. We know the rank; they do not publish the why.

#40
Market
+16
Gap
#24
SW rank · of 39
Tankathon#44nbadraftroom#222 cited publication(s)· #17 by consensus among the 39 SW-ranked

factExternal consensus #40 (Tankathon #44 · nbadraftroom #22; 2 source(s)). What we know: the rank. What we do NOT know: why they place him there — the sources publish rankings, not reasons.

Does our position hold? · The three lenses

Looks too high
  • On his individual signals alone (average opponent and team) he would be #37 of 39: +13 places versus SW #24, with a 0.4 % probability
  • On his environment alone (opponent and team) he would be #5 of 39, with 43 %
  • The comparables lens places him relatively lower on the board: #35 of 36 (+11 places versus SW #24). It is a relative rank, not a rate: 4 % of 300 similar seasons reached the NBA; the model gives him 56 % to reach it

Three independent lenses against our own place: his individual signals alone, his environment alone and the historical comparables. A lens disagrees when it lands 8 places away or more. SportiveWorld can be wrong: this is where it shows.

Conviction

Medium convictionHow much the data backs what we say — it is not the rank. A #1 can carry low conviction and a #30, high. 3 of 5 factors in favour.
  • Sample: 38 of 38 games with a box score (100%)
  • Standardised by the Scout census (own season profile)
  • Consensus from 2 sources
  • His individual signals alone place him far from the SW rank (#37 versus #24)
  • Historical comparables place him far away (#35 of 36 versus SW #24)
Why this gap exists

On our side the gap decomposes exactly: which dimensions push the rank up and which hold it back. On the consensus side we only see the rank: its sources publish rankings, not reasons, so why they place him there is UNKNOWN. All we can say is what our model does NOT measure.

factSportiveWorld #24 · consensus #40: 16 places higher. Pushing up: Opponent quality · Team strength · Efficiency. Holding back: Production · Minutes · Creation. Consensus sources: 2.

unknownWe know the consensus rank (#40: Tankathon #44 · nbadraftroom #22). We do not know why they place him there: the sources publish rankings, not reasons.

Pushes the rank up

Opponent quality +2.33
Opponent quality +5.8 (z +2.4)
Team strength +2.30
Team strength +18.0 (z +2.7)
Efficiency +0.39
True shooting (TS%) 51.9 % (z −0.7) · Shot volume per 40 9.3 (z −0.8) · Free-throw rate (FTA/FGA) 29.8 % (z −0.4)

Holds the rank back

Production −0.87
Scoring per 40 10.9 (z −1.0) · Rebounding per 40 6.5 (z +0.1) · Offensive rebounding per 40 1.3 (z −0.4)
Minutes −0.20
Minutes per game 23.5 min (z −0.3)
Creation −0.16
Assists per 40 1.9 (z −0.6) · Turnovers per 40 1.8 (z −0.5)

What our model does NOT measure (it could explain part of the gap; the consensus does not publish its reasons)

  • Age and class (Freshman): the model does not adjust for them; the same production from a younger player projects higher
  • Physique and athleticism: no Combine measurements; only the listed height
  • Projection, film and future role: not in the box score

No appreciable weight · Outside shooting +0.04 · Box-score defence +0.10

Rank history
#21#32#4209-1309-1409-1509-1609-1709-1809-20
SWConsensus

7 captures, from 2026-09-13 to 2026-09-20

  • ·2026-09-15: SW #23 → #24 · consensus #40 → #40 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)

Movement in the mocks

nbadraftroom: 09-13 #22 → 09-14 #22 → 09-15 #22 → 09-16 #22 → 09-17 #22 → 09-18 #22 → 09-20 #22
Tankathon: 09-13 #44 → 09-14 #44 → 09-15 #44 → 09-16 #44 → 09-17 #44 → 09-18 #44 → 09-20 #44

Data and evidence

Everything behind the reading, on demand: season signal by signal, trajectory, games with a box score, comparables, consensus and the provenance of every figure.

All the model's signals

Opponent quality
+5.8
+2.33
Team strength
+18.0
+2.30
Shot volume per 40
9.3
+0.28
Steals per 40
1.7
+0.12
Free-throw rate (FTA/FGA)
29.8 %
+0.06
True shooting (TS%)
51.9 %
+0.05
Share of threes
63.9 %
+0.04
Rebounding per 40
6.5
+0.02
Three-point accuracy
32.3 %
−0.01
Offensive rebounding per 40
1.3
−0.01
Blocks per 40
0.6
−0.02
Turnovers per 40
1.8
−0.02
Assists per 40
1.9
−0.13
Minutes per game
23.5 min
−0.20
Scoring per 40
10.9
−0.88

Calibrated probability of an NBA career of ≥ 2,000 minutes, given this season = 27.2 % · P(playing in the NBA) = 56.3 %

38 of 38 games with a box score · 21 conference · Average opponent +5.8 (+2.4 sd vs the cohort) · team +18.0 (+2.7 sd) · standardization from the Scout census

Who he is

Identity
Accredited by NCAA box score (ESPN id 5287474, corroborated by season and school)
Position
Shooting guard/Small forward
Team / school
Duke Blue Devils · Freshman
Country
Italy
Born
no data
Height
203 cm · official NCAA roster 2025-26 (ESPN)
Weight
86 kg

The games with a box score in the measured season

2025-26Opponentopp. ratingminptsrebast
2026-03-29UConn Huskies L 72-73 · NCAA Tournament+11.4281041box score
2026-03-27St. John's Red Storm W 80-75 · NCAA Tournament+11.326263box score
2026-03-21TCU Horned Frogs W 81-58 · NCAA Tournament+5.3291481box score
2026-03-19Siena Saints W 71-65 · NCAA Tournament+4.531522box score
2026-03-15Virginia Cavaliers W 74-70 · Conference Tournament+11.635942box score
2026-03-14Clemson Tigers W 73-61 · Conference Tournament+7.028830box score
2026-03-12Florida State Seminoles W 80-79 · Conference Tournament+2.435353box score
2026-03-07North Carolina Tar Heels W 76-61+8.1341031box score
2026-03-03@ NC State Wolfpack W 93-64+6.9221691box score
2026-02-28Virginia Cavaliers W 77-51+11.623541box score
2026-02-25@ Notre Dame Fighting Irish W 100-56−0.926850box score
2026-02-21Michigan Wolverines W 68-63+17.827520box score
2026-02-17Syracuse Orange W 101-64+0.824453box score
2026-02-14Clemson Tigers W 67-54+7.029611box score
2026-02-11@ Pittsburgh Panthers W 70-54−1.328372box score
2026-02-07@ North Carolina Tar Heels L 68-71+8.1331362box score
2026-02-04Boston College Eagles W 67-49−3.319621box score
2026-01-31@ Virginia Tech Hokies W 72-58+3.98010box score
2026-01-27Louisville Cardinals W 83-52+11.727252box score
2026-01-24Wake Forest Demon Deacons W 90-69+1.917540box score
2026-01-17@ Stanford Cardinal W 80-50+3.028311box score
2026-01-15@ California Golden Bears W 71-56+4.923542box score
2026-01-10SMU Mustangs W 82-75+6.118610box score
2026-01-07@ Louisville Cardinals W 84-73+11.726441box score
2026-01-03@ Florida State Seminoles W 91-87+2.4231330box score
2025-12-31Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets W 85-79−3.616010box score
2025-12-21Texas Tech Red Raiders L 81-82+7.210930box score
2025-12-16Lipscomb Bisons W 97-73+3.914653box score
2025-12-06@ Michigan State Spartans W 66-60+10.520421box score
2025-12-03Florida Gators W 67-66+15.617020box score
2025-11-28@ Arkansas Razorbacks W 80-71+9.217420box score
2025-11-23Howard Bison W 93-56+8.623681box score
2025-11-22Niagara Purple Eagles W 100-42−7.422553box score
2025-11-19Kansas Jayhawks W 78-66+6.121642box score
2025-11-15Indiana State Sycamores W 100-62−0.9181011box score
2025-11-12@ Army Black Knights W 114-59−5.1211930box score
2025-11-08Western Carolina Catamounts W 95-54+1.118240box score
2025-11-05Texas Longhorns W 75-60+6.628861box score

Evidence and provenance

Every figure in this file comes from one of these sources, with its scope and its sample. What is not here has not been measured.

OwnerScopeSample
Outside consensusdraft_board_mock · lib/bigboard.ts2 mocksTankathon #44 · nbadraftroom #22
Identitydraft_board_prospect.espn_athlete_id · scripts/cross_bigboard_stats.mjsNCAA Division I5287474
Seasonncaa_player_box + ncaa_game · lib/scout/ejes.mjsNCAA 2025-26 · Duke Blue Devils38 of 38 games with a box score
Opponent qualitylib/draft/sql_rival.mjs (ncaa_game, ≥10 pj)NCAA 2025-2638 / 38
zncaa_season_profile (scripts/scout_perfil_ncaa.mjs)NCAA 2025-26standardization from the Scout census
SW ranklib/draft/modelo.ts · lib/draft/calibracion.json2005-2021n=26,550 · AUC 0.897
The player within his teamncaa_player_box (rolDe · fórmulas B-R)NCAA 2025-2638 pj
The teamncaa_standings · ncaa_ranking · ncaa_gameNCAA 2025-26Atlantic Coast Conference
Comparables and outlook (Scout)scout_nba_outlook (scripts/scout_outlook.mjs)NCAA 2025-2638 pj · 2026-09-13
Physicalncaa_player (ESPN, 2026)NCAA 2025-26203 cm · 86 kg
Rank historydraft_sw_board_snapshot · draft_board_mock_snapshot (mig 0329)20277
Measured season 2025-26: our base has a box score for 6,297 of 6,300 games (100%). By month: 11/25 100 % · 12/25 100 % · 01/26 100 % · 02/26 100 % · 03/26 100 % · 04/26 100 %.

Declared limits

  • · No adjustment for age or class (the historical census lacks them): bias in favour of the productive veteran.
  • · Physical measurements and the combine are not in the model: they are shown as context.
  • · Calibrated on the NCAA only: ACB, EuroLeague and FIBA are not scored.
  • · The mocks' history starts on 2026-09-13: before that date there is none (the ingester overwrote them daily).