SportiveWorldSportiveWorld
Xavier Booker

Xavier Booker

UCLA Bruins · NCAA Division I · Power forward · Junior · 2.11 m

SportiveWorld evaluation

SW#64Projection Outside the 60Modelled
Potential · LimitedConfidence · HighMarket #58·SW 6

Main reading

His signals support him (#33 of 39); comparables qualify it (#20 of 36).

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: 36 of the team's 36 games) · Board computed on 2026-09-20 15:05 UTC · served from cache (4 min ago; recomputed every hour)

Why he is here

#38
NCAA model · of 39
6 %
NBA career prob.
NCAA model · Model weight in his rank: 67 %
Holds; comparables lens higherMedium convictionReliability · highProfile · Rotation wing

The NCAA model places him #38 of 39: his individual signals back it (#33) and the comparables lens places him relatively higher on the board (#20 of 36) — a relative rank: his analogues reached the NBA 10 % of the time, the model gives him 14 %. Market: #58.

Measured over 36 games with a box score · 2025-26 · UCLA Bruins

  • fact6 % probability of an NBA career (≥ 2,000 min). On the model's scale: context +2.23 · player −0.08. With average opponent and team, the same profile would give 0.7 %; on the environment alone, 6 %.
  • factMeasured environment: UCLA Bruins, strength +6.0 (+0.9 sd) · average opponent +4.0 (+1.6 sd) — environment #35 of 39 ranked
  • factHis individual signal adding the most: Blocks per 40 2.4 (+2.3 sd · contribution +0.87). On his individual signals alone he would be #33 of 39.
  • factHistorical comparables: 3 of 30 similar university seasons reached the NBA (10 %) — #20 of 36 ranked in that lens. The model gives him 14 % 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.

interpretationHis individual signals back the rank and the comparables lens places him relatively higher among the ranked. It is a relative position within the board, not an arrival rate: his analogues reached the NBA 10 % of the time and the model gives him 14 %. The two lenses disagree, and that lowers the conviction.

Production
+0.22
Efficiency
+0.22
Minutes
−0.52
Opponent quality + Team strength
+2.23
0.7 %
On his signals alone
6 %
On his environment alone
#33
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: #64 → #64 · NCAA model #37 → #38. · 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: 6% probability of an NBA career (#38 of 39 measured).Limited

  • The market (#58) 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 #38.

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 · UCLA Bruins · 7.3p · 3.5r · 0.8a · 20.2 min · 36 of 36 games with a box score · TS 63.6 %

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
2025-263620.214.56.91.51.363.6 %
Opponents +8 or better114-723.114.35.40.31.466.4 %
Other opponents2520-518.914.77.82.11.262.2 %
Postseason53-223.016.05.90.31.457.6 %
Away / neutral145-916.410.76.60.71.052.5 %

Strengths

Signals that add the most

Opponent quality +4.0 (+1.6 SD)
+1.51
Blocks per 40 2.4 (+2.3 SD)
+0.87
Team strength +6.0 (+0.9 SD)
+0.72

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

Minutes per game 20.2 min (−0.9 SD)
−0.52
Steals per 40 0.4 (−1.7 SD)
−0.34
Assists per 40 1.5 (−0.8 SD)
−0.19
  • Comparables: only 3 of 30 historical analogues reached the NBA
  • 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 #58

Would make us move him up

  • More scoring per 40 min: today 14.5 (−0.1 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 (20.2 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 27 of 36 games (75%) · 20.2 min (50% of the available minutes)
  • ·Usage 17.1% of his team's possessions while on the floor · 19% of its points
  • ·Creation: assists 7.0% of his teammates' baskets while on the floor · 1.20 assists per turnover · 10.0% of his possessions end in a turnover
  • ·Team record with him on the floor: 24-12 · estimated pace 66.0 possessions per 40 min

His team and schedule

  • ·UCLA Bruins · Big Ten Conference · 21-10 in the standings · 13-7 in conference
  • ·Latest poll: AP Top 25, week 6, #25 (7-2)
  • ·Postseason with a box score: 5 games, 2 in the NCAA Tournament (up to second round (32))
  • ·Team strength +6.0 (+0.9 sd in the cohort) · average opponent +4.0 (+1.6 sd): the model's two context signals

Development

2025-26
UCLA Bruins
7.3p · 3.5r · 0.8a · 20.2 min · TS 63.6 %
36 of 36 games with a box score
6 %
2024-25
Michigan State Spartans
4.2p · 2.4r · 0.8a · 14.2 min · TS 36.2 %
5 of 37 games with a box score
2023-24
Michigan State Spartans
3.6p · 1.6r · 0.2a · 8.6 min · TS 57.3 %
23 of 35 games with a box score

The previous season (2024-25) has 5 games with a box score: too small a sample to compare.

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.

fact3 of the 30 university seasons most like his 2025-26 reached the NBA (10 %) · statistical archetype: Rotation wing

NBA twins · what they share

Kyle O'Quinn d 2.16 · 6,710 NBA minBlocks per 40 +2.0 · Assists per 40 −1.0

Computed on 2025-26 (36 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.

#58
Market
+20
Gap
#38
SW rank · of 39
Tankathon#541 cited publication(s)· #33 by consensus among the 39 SW-ranked

factExternal consensus #58 (Tankathon #54; 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; comparables lens higher
  • On his individual signals alone he would be #33 of 39: the same zone as SW #38
  • On his environment alone (opponent and team) he would be #35 of 39, with 6 %
  • The comparables lens places him relatively higher on the board: #20 of 36 (−18 places versus SW #38). It is a relative rank, not a rate: 10 % of 30 similar seasons reached the NBA; the model gives him 14 % 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: 36 of 36 games with a box score (100%)
  • 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 (#33 versus SW #38)
  • Historical comparables place him far away (#20 of 36 versus SW #38)
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 #38 · consensus #58: 20 places higher. Pushing up: Opponent quality · Team strength · Box-score defence · Efficiency. Holding back: Minutes · Creation. Consensus sources: 1.

unknownWe know the consensus rank (#58: Tankathon #54). We do not know why they place him there: the sources publish rankings, not reasons.

Pushes the rank up

Opponent quality +1.51
Opponent quality +4.0 (z +1.6)
Team strength +0.72
Team strength +6.0 (z +0.9)
Box-score defence +0.53
Steals per 40 0.4 (z −1.7) · Blocks per 40 2.4 (z +2.3)
Efficiency +0.20
True shooting (TS%) 63.6 % (z +1.3) · Shot volume per 40 10.5 (z −0.4) · Free-throw rate (FTA/FGA) 21.1 % (z −0.9)

Holds the rank back

Minutes −0.52
Minutes per game 20.2 min (z −0.9)
Creation −0.25
Assists per 40 1.5 (z −0.8) · Turnovers per 40 1.3 (z −1.2)

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 · Production −0.06 · Outside shooting +0.02

Rank history
#35#48#6009-1309-1409-1509-1609-1709-1809-20
SWConsensus

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

  • ·2026-09-15: SW #37 → #38 · consensus #58 → #58 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)

Movement in the mocks

Tankathon: 09-13 #54 → 09-14 #54 → 09-15 #54 → 09-16 #54 → 09-17 #54 → 09-18 #54 → 09-20 #54

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
+4.0
+1.51
Blocks per 40
2.4
+0.87
Team strength
+6.0
+0.72
Shot volume per 40
10.5
+0.15
Free-throw rate (FTA/FGA)
21.1 %
+0.14
Rebounding per 40
6.9
+0.06
Three-point accuracy
43.3 %
+0.03
Offensive rebounding per 40
2.3
+0.02
Share of threes
35.3 %
−0.01
Turnovers per 40
1.3
−0.05
True shooting (TS%)
63.6 %
−0.09
Scoring per 40
14.5
−0.13
Assists per 40
1.5
−0.19
Steals per 40
0.4
−0.34
Minutes per game
20.2 min
−0.52

Calibrated probability of an NBA career of ≥ 2,000 minutes, given this season = 6.0 % · P(playing in the NBA) = 14.2 %

36 of 36 games with a box score · 23 conference · Average opponent +4.0 (+1.6 sd vs the cohort) · team +6.0 (+0.9 sd) · standardization from the Scout census

Who he is

Identity
Accredited by NCAA box score (ESPN id 4711304, corroborated by season and school)
Position
Power forward
Team / school
UCLA Bruins · Junior
Country
USA
Born
no data
Height
211 cm · official NCAA roster 2025-26 (ESPN)
Weight
111 kg

The games with a box score in the measured season

2025-26Opponentopp. ratingminptsrebast
2026-03-23@ UConn Huskies L 57-73 · NCAA Tournament+11.4331351box score
2026-03-20UCF Knights W 75-71 · NCAA Tournament+2.3261580box score
2026-03-14Purdue Boilermakers L 66-73 · Conference Tournament+11.1271210box score
2026-03-14@ Michigan State Spartans W 88-84 · Conference Tournament+10.514010box score
2026-03-13Rutgers Scarlet Knights W 72-59 · Conference Tournament−4.815620box score
2026-03-08@ USC Trojans W 89-68+0.78031box score
2026-03-04Nebraska Cornhuskers W 72-52+10.89820box score
2026-02-28@ Minnesota Golden Gophers L 73-78+0.910020box score
2026-02-25USC Trojans W 81-62+0.7261141box score
2026-02-22Illinois Fighting Illini W 95-94+14.5241640box score
2026-02-18@ Michigan State Spartans L 59-82+10.525220box score
2026-02-14@ Michigan Wolverines L 56-86+17.818520box score
2026-02-08Washington Huskies W 77-73+3.524170box score
2026-02-04Rutgers Scarlet Knights W 98-66−4.8292453box score
2026-01-31Indiana Hoosiers L 97-98+6.032724box score
2026-01-29@ Oregon Ducks W 73-57−3.119760box score
2026-01-24Northwestern Wildcats W 71-64+1.224580box score
2026-01-21Purdue Boilermakers W 69-67+11.135940box score
2026-01-17@ Ohio State Buckeyes L 74-86+6.72000box score
2026-01-15@ Penn State Nittany Lions W 71-60−5.712040box score
2026-01-11Maryland Terrapins W 67-55−6.916500box score
2026-01-07@ Wisconsin Badgers L 72-80+6.91000box score
2026-01-03@ Iowa Hawkeyes L 61-74+8.312410box score
2025-12-23UC Riverside Highlanders W 97-65−4.913611box score
2025-12-20Cal Poly Mustangs W 108-87−2.93010box score
2025-12-18Arizona State Sun Devils W 90-77−2.014201box score
2025-12-14@ Gonzaga Bulldogs L 72-82+18.1261250box score
2025-12-06Oregon Ducks W 74-63−3.1221251box score
2025-12-04@ Washington Huskies W 82-80+3.517832box score
2025-11-26@ California Golden Bears L 72-80+4.9321040box score
2025-11-22Presbyterian Blue Hose W 86-46+0.221913box score
2025-11-19Sacramento State Hornets W 79-48−4.3191280box score
2025-11-15Arizona Wildcats L 65-69+16.8311071box score
2025-11-11West Georgia Wolves W 83-62−3.026464box score
2025-11-08Pepperdine Waves W 74-63−7.3311551box score
2025-11-04Eastern Washington Eagles W 80-74−0.9301473box 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 #54
Identitydraft_board_prospect.espn_athlete_id · scripts/cross_bigboard_stats.mjsNCAA Division I4711304
Seasonncaa_player_box + ncaa_game · lib/scout/ejes.mjsNCAA 2025-26 · UCLA Bruins36 of 36 games with a box score
Opponent qualitylib/draft/sql_rival.mjs (ncaa_game, ≥10 pj)NCAA 2025-2636 / 36
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 2025-2636 pj
The teamncaa_standings · ncaa_ranking · ncaa_gameNCAA 2025-26Big Ten Conference
Comparables and outlook (Scout)scout_nba_outlook (scripts/scout_outlook.mjs)NCAA 2025-2636 pj · 2026-09-13
Physicalncaa_player (ESPN, 2026)NCAA 2025-26211 cm · 111 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).