SportiveWorldSportiveWorld
JT Toppin

JT Toppin

Texas Tech Red Raiders · NCAA Division I · Power forward · Junior · 2.06 m

SportiveWorld evaluation

SW#19Projection Round 1Modelled
Potential · HighConfidence · HighMarket #51·SW +321

Main reading

Measured production against measured opponents (25 games, 2025-26); on his signals alone, #1 of 39.

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: 25 of the team's 34 games) · Board computed on 2026-09-20 15:05 UTC · served from cache (2 min ago; recomputed every hour)

Why he is here

#1
NCAA model · of 39
88 %
NBA career prob.
NCAA model · Model weight in his rank: 67 %
HoldsHigh convictionReliability · highProfile · Perimeter scorer

The NCAA model places him #1 of 39: measured production against measured opponents, and his individual signals alone leave him #1. The market has him 50 places lower (#51).

Measured over 25 games with a box score · 2025-26 · Texas Tech Red Raiders

  • fact88 % probability of an NBA career (≥ 2,000 min). On the model's scale: context +3.39 · player +3.51. With average opponent and team, the same profile would give 19.7 %; on the environment alone, 18 %.
  • factMeasured environment: Texas Tech Red Raiders, strength +7.2 (+1.0 sd) · average opponent +6.2 (+2.6 sd) — environment #22 of 39 ranked
  • factHis individual signal adding the most: Scoring per 40 25.1 (+2.3 sd · contribution +2.04). On his individual signals alone he would be #1 of 39.
  • factHistorical comparables: 8 of 30 similar university seasons reached the NBA (27 %) — #2 of 36 ranked in that lens. The model gives him 95 % 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.

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not yet measure age, physique or projection; those dimensions could explain part of the gap, but the consensus sources do not publish the reason for their rank here.

Production
+3.48
Efficiency
−0.89
Minutes
+0.91
Opponent quality + Team strength
+3.39
19.7 %
On his signals alone
18 %
On his environment alone
#1
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: #18 → #19 (-1) · No changes of his own: others moved. · 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 · HighConfidence · High

factStarts from the NCAA model: 88% probability of an NBA career (#1 of 39 measured).Elite

  • The market (#51) sees him two bands below the model: down one level.
  • On his individual signals alone he would be #1 of 39: consistent with his model #1.

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 · Texas Tech Red Raiders · 21.8p · 10.8r · 2.1a · 34.8 min · 25 of 34 games with a box score · TS 57.6 %

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
2025-262534.825.112.42.42.857.6 %
Opponents +8 or better95-438.125.711.71.62.959.8 %
Other opponents1613-333.024.713.03.02.856.2 %
Away / neutral115-636.525.410.82.33.360.5 %

Strengths

Signals that add the most

Opponent quality +6.2 (+2.6 SD)
+2.52
Scoring per 40 25.1 (+2.3 SD)
+2.04
Minutes per game 34.8 min (+1.6 SD)
+0.91
  • Trajectory: +5.3 pts/40 vs 2023-24
  • Comparables: 8 of 30 historical analogues reached the NBA

What travels: holds up against strong opponents

  • Scoring per 40: 25.7 against +8 opponents (9 games) versus 25.1 over the season — it holds

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

Shot volume per 40 19.6 (+2.5 SD)
−0.91
  • Junior: the model does not adjust for age or class; the same production from a freshman projects higher

Would make us move him down

  • Turnovers staying high: 2.8 per 40 min
  • Age: we do not adjust for it (Junior); the same production from a freshman projects higher
  • More sources consolidating the consensus #51

Would make us move him up

  • Fewer turnovers: today 2.8 per 40 min (+0.9 sd)
  • 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 mocks: captured daily; today the consensus is 1 source(s)
  • His minutes (34.8 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 25 of 25 games (100%) · 34.8 min (87% of the available minutes)
  • ·Usage 31.2% of his team's possessions while on the floor · 31% of its points
  • ·Creation: assists 13.7% of his teammates' baskets while on the floor · 0.90 assists per turnover · 11.6% of his possessions end in a turnover
  • ·Team record with him on the floor: 18-7 · estimated pace 68.9 possessions per 40 min

His team and schedule

  • ·Texas Tech Red Raiders · Big 12 Conference · 22-9 in the standings · 12-6 in conference
  • ·Latest poll: Coaches Poll, week 21, #21 (23-11)
  • ·Postseason with a box score: 3 games, 2 in the NCAA Tournament (up to second round (32))
  • ·Team strength +7.2 (+1.0 sd in the cohort) · average opponent +6.2 (+2.6 sd): the model's two context signals

Development

2025-26
Texas Tech Red Raiders
21.8p · 10.8r · 2.1a · 34.8 min · TS 57.6 %
25 of 34 games with a box score
88 %
2024-25
Texas Tech Red Raiders
19.8p · 10.3r · 1.2a · 26.5 min · TS 66.6 %
6 of 37 games with a box score
2023-24
New Mexico Lobos
12.8p · 8.8r · 0.5a · 25.8 min · TS 65.3 %
32 of 36 games with a box score
46 %

Versus 2023-24: +5.3 pts/40 · −7.7 % TS · +1.7 ast/40 · −1.2 reb/40 · +9.0 min · SW score +42 pp · 2024-25 skipped: 6 games with a box score

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.

fact8 of the 30 university seasons most like his 2025-26 reached the NBA (27 %) · statistical archetype: Perimeter scorer

Ceiling
Brook Lopez
35,164 NBA min · pick #10
Expected
Thomas Robinson
4,206 NBA min · pick #5
Floor
Damion James
625 NBA min · pick #24

NBA twins · what they share

Shawn Long d 2.04 · 233 NBA minRebounding per 40 +2.5 · Shot volume per 40 +2.4 · Blocks per 40 +2.0
Glen Davis d 2.05 · 10,880 NBA minOffensive rebounding per 40 +2.4 · Rebounding per 40 +2.3 · Scoring per 40 +2.3 · Shot volume per 40 +2.3
Pascal Siakam d 2.06 · 21,700 NBA minRebounding per 40 +2.4 · Offensive rebounding per 40 +2.3 · Scoring per 40 +2.2 · Blocks per 40 +2.1

Computed on 2025-26 (25 games) · 2026-09-13

Combine

NBA Draft Combine 2024 · identity: unique name within the 2024-2026 window and undrafted · rank within HIS cohort (those who did the test that year)

What stands out most

Hand length23.5 cm (9.25 ″)

percentile 93 among the PFs measured in 2020-2024 (rank 5 of 62)

interpretationBig hands: ball control and grip above the norm for his position

Does not change with age: still true today (measured at the 2024 Combine)

All measurements · 11
Height without shoes
201 cm (79.00 ″)
Wingspan
215 cm (84.50 ″)
percentile 51 among the PFs measured in 2020-2024 (rank 31 of 62)
Standing reach
269 cm (106.00 ″)
percentile 46 among the PFs measured in 2020-2024 (rank 34 of 62)
Hand length
23.5 cm (9.25 ″)
percentile 93 among the PFs measured in 2020-2024 (rank 5 of 62)
Hand width
23.5 cm (9.25 ″)
percentile 31 among the PFs measured in 2020-2024 (rank 43 of 62)
WeightA snapshot of that day (2024)
100 kg (221.0 lb)
Standing verticalA snapshot of that day (2024)
72 cm (28.50 ″)
percentile 51 among the PFs measured in 2020-2024 (rank 28 of 56)
Max verticalA snapshot of that day (2024)
86 cm (34.00 ″)
percentile 42 among the PFs measured in 2020-2024 (rank 33 of 56)
¾ court sprintA snapshot of that day (2024)
3.27 s (3.27 s)
percentile 49 among the PFs measured in 2020-2024 (rank 29 of 56)
Lane agilityA snapshot of that day (2024)
11.12 s (11.12 s)
percentile 67 among the PFs measured in 2020-2024 (rank 19 of 56)
Modified lane agilityA snapshot of that day (2024)
3.01 s (3.01 s)
percentile 66 among the PFs measured in 2020-2024 (rank 16 of 45)

Market vs SportiveWorld

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

#51
Market
+50
Gap
#1
SW rank · of 39
Tankathon#461 cited publication(s)· #27 by consensus among the 39 SW-ranked

factExternal consensus #51 (Tankathon #46; 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

Holds
  • On his individual signals alone he would be #1 of 39: the same zone as SW #1
  • On his environment alone (opponent and team) he would be #22 of 39, with 18 %
  • The comparables lens places him in the same zone of the board: #2 of 36 versus SW #1. A relative rank, not a rate: 27 % of 30 similar seasons reached the NBA; the model gives him 95 % 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

High convictionHow much the data backs what we say — it is not the rank. A #1 can carry low conviction and a #30, high. 5 of 6 factors in favour.
  • Sample: 25 of 34 games with a box score (74%)
  • Standardised by the Scout census (own season profile)
  • The consensus is a SINGLE source (1): it is not a market
  • His individual signals alone leave him in the same zone (#1 versus SW #1)
  • Historical comparables agree on the zone (#2 of 36 versus SW #1)
  • Trajectory in favour: +42 pp of probability versus 2023-24
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 #1 · consensus #51: 50 places higher. Pushing up: Production · Opponent quality · Minutes · Team strength · Box-score defence. Holding back: Efficiency. Consensus sources: 1.

unknownWe know the consensus rank (#51: Tankathon #46). We do not know why they place him there: the sources publish rankings, not reasons.

Pushes the rank up

Production +2.75
Scoring per 40 25.1 (z +2.3) · Rebounding per 40 12.4 (z +2.3) · Offensive rebounding per 40 4.8 (z +2.4)
Opponent quality +2.52
Opponent quality +6.2 (z +2.6)
Minutes +0.91
Minutes per game 34.8 min (z +1.6)
Team strength +0.87
Team strength +7.2 (z +1.0)
Box-score defence +0.75
Steals per 40 1.6 (z +0.4) · Blocks per 40 2.0 (z +1.8)

Holds the rank back

Efficiency −0.83
True shooting (TS%) 57.6 % (z +0.3) · Shot volume per 40 19.6 (z +2.5) · Free-throw rate (FTA/FGA) 25.1 % (z −0.6)

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: measured at the 2024 Combine (below), but outside the model
  • Projection, film and future role: not in the box score

No appreciable weight · Creation −0.01 · Outside shooting −0.06

Rank history
#1#27#5309-1309-1409-1509-1609-1709-1809-20
SWConsensus

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

Movement in the mocks

Tankathon: 09-13 #46 → 09-14 #46 → 09-15 #46 → 09-16 #46 → 09-17 #46 → 09-18 #46 → 09-20 #46

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
+6.2
+2.52
Scoring per 40
25.1
+2.04
Minutes per game
34.8 min
+0.91
Team strength
+7.2
+0.87
Blocks per 40
2.0
+0.67
Rebounding per 40
12.4
+0.62
Free-throw rate (FTA/FGA)
25.1 %
+0.10
Offensive rebounding per 40
4.8
+0.09
Steals per 40
1.6
+0.08
Turnovers per 40
2.8
+0.04
Three-point accuracy
28.1 %
−0.02
True shooting (TS%)
57.6 %
−0.02
Share of threes
13.3 %
−0.04
Assists per 40
2.4
−0.05
Shot volume per 40
19.6
−0.91

Calibrated probability of an NBA career of ≥ 2,000 minutes, given this season = 88.0 % · P(playing in the NBA) = 94.9 %

25 of 34 games with a box score · 13 conference · Average opponent +6.2 (+2.6 sd vs the cohort) · team +7.2 (+1.0 sd) · standardization from the Scout census

Who he is

Identity
Accredited by NCAA box score (ESPN id 5143604, corroborated by season and school)
Position
Power forward
Team / school
Texas Tech Red Raiders · Junior
Country
USA
Born
no data
Height
206 cm · official NCAA roster 2025-26 (ESPN)
Weight
104 kg

The games with a box score in the measured season

2025-26Opponentopp. ratingminptsrebast
2026-02-18@ Arizona State Sun Devils L 67-72−2.0322084box score
2026-02-14@ Arizona Wildcats W 78-75+16.84431133box score
2026-02-12Colorado Buffaloes W 78-44+0.43416182box score
2026-02-08@ West Virginia Mountaineers W 70-63+4.9372292box score
2026-02-03Kansas Jayhawks L 61-64+6.1311060box score
2026-01-31@ UCF Knights L 80-88+2.33727102box score
2026-01-24Houston Cougars W 90-86+14.54031123box score
2026-01-21@ Baylor Bears W 92-73+5.3332242box score
2026-01-18BYU Cougars W 84-71+8.14027130box score
2026-01-15Utah Utes W 88-74−4.73631137box score
2026-01-11@ Colorado Buffaloes W 73-71+0.43216134box score
2026-01-07@ Houston Cougars L 65-69+14.53818111box score
2026-01-03Oklahoma State Cowboys W 102-80+0.73023141box score
2025-12-28Winthrop Eagles W 87-57+8.23314112box score
2025-12-21@ Duke Blue Devils W 82-81+18.03319100box score
2025-12-17Northern Colorado Bears W 101-90+6.0342331box score
2025-12-13@ Arkansas Razorbacks L 86-93+9.24030110box score
2025-12-07LSU Tigers W 82-58+2.93111151box score
2025-11-30Wyoming Cowboys W 76-72+3.9362791box score
2025-11-26New Orleans Privateers W 82-50−3.23019162box score
2025-11-22@ Purdue Boilermakers L 56-86+11.1361582box score
2025-11-21Wake Forest Demon Deacons W 84-83+1.9332194box score
2025-11-15Milwaukee Panthers W 80-63−3.4307102box score
2025-11-12@ Illinois Fighting Illini L 77-81+14.53935113box score
2025-11-08Sam Houston Bearkats W 98-77+7.13231144box 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.ts1 mocksTankathon #46
Identitydraft_board_prospect.espn_athlete_id · scripts/cross_bigboard_stats.mjsNCAA Division I5143604
Seasonncaa_player_box + ncaa_game · lib/scout/ejes.mjsNCAA 2025-26 · Texas Tech Red Raiders25 of 34 games with a box score
Opponent qualitylib/draft/sql_rival.mjs (ncaa_game, ≥10 pj)NCAA 2025-2625 / 25
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 2025-2625 pj
The teamncaa_standings · ncaa_ranking · ncaa_gameNCAA 2025-26Big 12 Conference
Comparables and outlook (Scout)scout_nba_outlook (scripts/scout_outlook.mjs)NCAA 2025-2625 pj · 2026-09-13
Combineplayer_combine · lib/basketball/fisico.tsNBA Draft Combine 2024nombre_unico_en_ventana_y_no_drafteado · 2024-2026
Physicalncaa_player (ESPN, 2026)NCAA 2025-26206 cm · 104 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).