Daniel Jacobsen
Purdue Boilermakers · NCAA Division I · Center · Junior · 2.24 m
SportiveWorld evaluation
Main reading
Measured production against measured opponents (39 games, 2025-26); on his signals alone, #33 of 39.
Data and sources
Player evaluation
Why he is here
The NCAA model places him #30 of 39: measured production against measured opponents, and his individual signals alone leave him #33. The market has him 29 places lower (#59).
The position holds on what is measured: the rank does not change zone when the environment is removed or the comparables are consulted. SportiveWorld does not yet measure age, physique or projection; those dimensions could explain part of the gap, but the consensus sources do not publish the reason for their rank here.
- 16 % probability of an NBA career (≥ 2,000 min). On the model's scale: context +3.10 · player +0.16. With average opponent and team, the same profile would give 0.9 %; on the environment alone, 14 %.
- Measured environment: Purdue Boilermakers, strength +11.1 (+1.6 sd) · average opponent +4.4 (+1.8 sd) — environment #26 of 39 ranked
- His individual signal adding the most: Blocks per 40 3.7 (+4.1 sd · contribution +1.54). On his individual signals alone he would be #33 of 39.
How this evaluation is produced
The NCAA model places him #30 of 39: measured production against measured opponents, and his individual signals alone leave him #33. The market has him 29 places lower (#59).
Measured over 39 games with a box score · 2025-26 · Purdue Boilermakers
- fact16 % probability of an NBA career (≥ 2,000 min). On the model's scale: context +3.10 · player +0.16. With average opponent and team, the same profile would give 0.9 %; on the environment alone, 14 %.
- factMeasured environment: Purdue Boilermakers, strength +11.1 (+1.6 sd) · average opponent +4.4 (+1.8 sd) — environment #26 of 39 ranked
- factHis individual signal adding the most: Blocks per 40 3.7 (+4.1 sd · contribution +1.54). On his individual signals alone he would be #33 of 39.
interpretationThe position holds on what is measured: the rank does not change zone when the environment is removed or the comparables are consulted. SportiveWorld does not yet measure age, physique or projection; those dimensions could explain part of the gap, but the consensus sources do not publish the reason for their rank here.
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.
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.
factStarts from the NCAA model: 16% probability of an NBA career (#30 of 39 measured). → Medium
- ◎The market (#59) does not disagree with the model enough to move the reading.
- ◎On his individual signals alone he would be #33 of 39: consistent with his model #30.
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 · Purdue Boilermakers · 5.5p · 3.0r · 0.3a · 12.9 min · 39 of 39 games with a box score · TS 66.9 %
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.
| pj | W-L | min | pts/40 | reb/40 | ast/40 | tov/40 | TS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | 39 | — | 12.9 | 17.1 | 9.4 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 66.9 % |
| Opponents +8 or better | 13 | 8-5 | 11.6 | 15.4 | 8.2 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 55.9 % |
| Other opponents | 26 | 22-4 | 13.5 | 17.8 | 9.9 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 72.2 % |
| Postseason | 8 | 7-1 | 6.6 | 11.3 | 4.5 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 59.3 % |
| Away / neutral | 15 | 11-4 | 11.3 | 11.6 | 8.3 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 61.1 % |
Measured strengths and risks
Strengths
Signals that add the most
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
- ▼Junior: the model does not adjust for age or class; the same production from a freshman projects higher
Would make us move him down
- ▼Age: we do not adjust for it (Junior); the same production from a freshman projects higher
- ▼More sources consolidating the consensus #59
Would make us move him up
- ▲More scoring per 40 min: today 17.1 (+0.4 sd)
- ▲Combine measurements (wingspan, reach, athleticism): we do not have them today
- ▲A second source placing him nearby: today the consensus is a single mock
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 1 source(s)
- →His minutes (12.9 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 0 of 39 games (0%) · 12.9 min (32% of the available minutes)
- ·Usage 19.2% of his team's possessions while on the floor · 21% of its points
- ·Creation: assists 4.5% of his teammates' baskets while on the floor · 0.60 assists per turnover · 12.1% of his possessions end in a turnover
- ·Team record with him on the floor: 30-9 · estimated pace 65.7 possessions per 40 min
His team and schedule
- ·Purdue Boilermakers · Big Ten Conference · 23-8 in the standings · 13-7 in conference
- ·Latest poll: Coaches Poll, week 21, #7 (30-9)
- ·Postseason with a box score: 8 games, 4 in the NCAA Tournament (up to Elite Eight)
- ·Team strength +11.1 (+1.6 sd in the cohort) · average opponent +4.4 (+1.8 sd): the model's two context signals
Development
The previous season (2024-25) has 2 games with a box score: too small a sample to compare.
Combine
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
Market vs SportiveWorld
Outside reference: the rank given by the cited publications. We know the rank; they do not publish the why.
factExternal consensus #59 (Tankathon #55; 1 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
- ◎On his individual signals alone he would be #33 of 39: the same zone as SW #30
- ◎On his environment alone (opponent and team) he would be #26 of 39, with 14 %
- ◎No Scout historical comparables for this season: that lens does not apply
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
- ✓Sample: 39 of 39 games with a box score (100%)
- ✗Standardised against the census population (no own profile)
- ✗The consensus is a SINGLE source (1): it is not a market
- ✓His individual signals alone leave him in the same zone (#33 versus SW #30)
- ✗No historical comparables for this season
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 #30 · consensus #59: 29 places higher. Pushing up: Opponent quality · Team strength · Box-score defence · Production. Holding back: Minutes · Creation · Efficiency. Consensus sources: 1.
unknownWe know the consensus rank (#59: Tankathon #55). We do not know why they place him there: the sources publish rankings, not reasons.
Pushes the rank up
Holds the rank back
What our model does NOT measure (it could explain part of the gap; the consensus does not publish its reasons)
- ◇Age and class (Junior): the model does not adjust for them and favours the productive veteran
- ◇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 −0.05
Rank history ▾
12 captures, from 2026-10-23 to 2026-11-04
- ·2026-10-24: SW #31 → #31 · consensus #58 → #61 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
- ·2026-10-25: SW #31 → #30 · consensus #61 → #60 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
- ·2026-10-27: SW #30 → #30 · consensus #60 → #62 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
- ·2026-10-28: SW #30 → #31 · consensus #62 → #63 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
- ·2026-10-29: SW #31 → #30 · consensus #63 → #60 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
- ·2026-10-30: SW #30 → #31 · consensus #60 → #61 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
- ·2026-10-31: SW #31 → #30 · consensus #61 → #61 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
- ·2026-11-01: SW #30 → #31 · consensus #61 → #62 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
- ·2026-11-03: SW #31 → #29 · consensus #62 → #58 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
- ·2026-11-04: SW #29 → #30 · consensus #58 → #59 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
Movement in the mocks
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.
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
Calibrated probability of an NBA career of ≥ 2,000 minutes, given this season = 16.1 % · P(playing in the NBA) = 41.8 %
39 of 39 games with a box score · 24 conference · Average opponent +4.4 (+1.8 sd vs the cohort) · team +11.1 (+1.6 sd) · standardization computed here against that season's Scout census population (the census has no profile for him: sample below its 15-game/15-minute bar, or a name its outcome resolution deems ambiguous)
Who he is
The games with a box score in the measured season
| 2025-26 | Opponent | opp. rating | min | pts | reb | ast | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-29 | @ Arizona Wildcats L 64-79 · NCAA Tournament | +16.8 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-03-26 | Texas Longhorns W 79-77 · NCAA Tournament | +6.6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-03-22 | Miami Hurricanes W 79-69 · NCAA Tournament | +10.3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-03-20 | Queens University Royals W 104-71 · NCAA Tournament | +0.9 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-03-15 | @ Michigan Wolverines W 80-72 · Conference Tournament | +17.8 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-03-14 | @ UCLA Bruins W 73-66 · Conference Tournament | +6.0 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-03-13 | @ Nebraska Cornhuskers W 74-58 · Conference Tournament | +10.8 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-03-12 | Northwestern Wildcats W 81-68 · Conference Tournament | +1.2 | 10 | 5 | 1 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-03-07 | Wisconsin Badgers L 93-97 | +6.9 | 13 | 7 | 5 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-03-05 | @ Northwestern Wildcats W 70-66 | +1.2 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-03-01 | @ Ohio State Buckeyes L 74-82 | +6.7 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-02-27 | Michigan State Spartans L 74-76 | +10.5 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-02-21 | Indiana Hoosiers W 93-64 | +6.0 | 14 | 6 | 3 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-02-17 | Michigan Wolverines L 80-91 | +17.8 | 14 | 2 | 3 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-02-14 | @ Iowa Hawkeyes W 78-57 | +8.3 | 20 | 6 | 4 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-02-11 | @ Nebraska Cornhuskers W 80-77 | +10.8 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-02-07 | Oregon Ducks W 68-64 | −3.1 | 20 | 9 | 4 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-02-01 | @ Maryland Terrapins W 93-63 | −6.9 | 21 | 8 | 5 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-01-28 | @ Indiana Hoosiers L 67-72 | +6.0 | 13 | 3 | 5 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-01-24 | Illinois Fighting Illini L 82-88 | +14.5 | 11 | 4 | 2 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-01-21 | @ UCLA Bruins L 67-69 | +6.0 | 16 | 4 | 3 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-01-17 | @ USC Trojans W 69-64 | +0.7 | 13 | 0 | 3 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-01-14 | Iowa Hawkeyes W 79-72 | +8.3 | 18 | 7 | 9 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-01-10 | Penn State Nittany Lions W 93-85 | −5.7 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-01-08 | Washington Huskies W 81-73 | +3.5 | 13 | 10 | 1 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-01-04 | @ Wisconsin Badgers W 89-73 | +6.9 | 14 | 7 | 3 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-12-30 | Kent State Golden Flashes W 101-60 | +4.7 | 22 | 11 | 4 | 1 | box score |
| 2025-12-20 | Auburn Tigers W 88-60 | +4.2 | 18 | 4 | 3 | 1 | box score |
| 2025-12-13 | Marquette Golden Eagles W 79-59 | −0.6 | 16 | 4 | 2 | 1 | box score |
| 2025-12-11 | Minnesota Golden Gophers W 85-57 | +0.9 | 21 | 11 | 5 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-12-06 | Iowa State Cyclones L 58-81 | +16.4 | 15 | 10 | 3 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-12-03 | @ Rutgers Scarlet Knights W 81-65 | −4.8 | 13 | 3 | 4 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-11-28 | Eastern Illinois Panthers W 109-62 | −3.2 | 18 | 24 | 9 | 1 | box score |
| 2025-11-22 | Texas Tech Red Raiders W 86-56 | +7.2 | 19 | 11 | 8 | 2 | box score |
| 2025-11-20 | Memphis Tigers W 80-71 | −1.5 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-11-17 | Akron Zips W 97-79 | +13.9 | 19 | 9 | 2 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-11-14 | @ Alabama Crimson Tide W 87-80 | +8.5 | 16 | 9 | 5 | 1 | box score |
| 2025-11-08 | Oakland Golden Grizzlies W 87-77 | +0.9 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 1 | box score |
| 2025-11-04 | Evansville Purple Aces W 82-51 | −9.5 | 21 | 11 | 8 | 0 | box 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.
| Source | Scope | Sample | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outside consensus | The public mock drafts we track | 1 mocks | Tankathon #55 |
| Identity | His ESPN NCAA box scores, matched with the board | NCAA Division I | 5144147 |
| Season | ESPN's NCAA box scores, game by game | NCAA 2025-26 · Purdue Boilermakers | 39 of 39 games with a box score |
| Opponent quality | NCAA games with the opponent's strength measured (at least 10) | NCAA 2025-26 | 39 / 39 |
| Standard score (z) against the NCAA | All NCAA players of that season | NCAA 2025-26 | standardization computed here against that season's Scout census population (the census has no profile for him: sample below its 15-game/15-minute bar, or a name its outcome resolution deems ambiguous) |
| SW rank | SportiveWorld's draft model, calibrated on past drafts | 2005-2021 | n=26,550 · AUC 0.897 |
| The player within his team | His NCAA box scores, with Basketball-Reference formulas | NCAA 2025-26 | 39 pj |
| The team | NCAA standings, the AP ranking and games | NCAA 2025-26 | Big Ten Conference |
| Physical | His NCAA profile on ESPN | NCAA 2025-26 | 224 cm · 113 kg |
| Rank history | Daily snapshots of the board and the mock drafts | 2027 | 12 |
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).