BPA is great, but in the realm of amateur roster construct and "lets play fantasy GM" I dont see the benefit in adding more wings and guards to his roster. Who's development do you give up on in order to allot minutes to the new wing/guard? If you miss out on the top 3 big men in the draft then I'd trade down for a player like Murray, PBJ, Sochan, Eason or Jovic. Its kind of sad to see some guys draw battle lines and need to find themselves on the "right" side of this debate when there is plenty of positives from each of the players involved in the discussion. I'll be looking at Chet the most in the tourney since he seems to shrink vs ranked competition this year save maybe the UCLA game, but he is a fascinating prospect. I just like what Banchero brings in terms of leadership and true #1 potential, and I think taking a 3&D player that high in the draft is risky.
LOL. Now you out here just making **** up, you really are off your meds. You are going the pgabs route, just saying outrageous **** to get attention. Nobody has ever called Chet a scrub but for some reason you take it that way.
Bottom line is, the only player in the top 3 capable of being the best player on a good team is Chet. Paolo will be a great offensive option but not well rounded. Jabari will be an elite 3&D player with high upside. Chet is already elite 3&D with a post game and guard like handles and fluidity.
Jabari shoots around the same FTAs, and about half his shots are 3PTAs at a 43% clip (equivalent to about 65% from 2 point range). Considering Jabari's quick release, high release, and frequency of shots out of the paint (i.e., where shots come from), I worry less about NBA shot blockers and NBA defenders contesting jump shots for Jabari than I do Paolo.
If the Rockets get Banchero I will be excited. I have him 4th in this draft, possibly 3rd at this point. On the offensive side there is a lot of potential to be a pretty good volume scorer. He is tall, reasonably long (7'0" wingspan) and strong. He isn't an explosive athlete but he is a good enough athlete and has the coordination to let him create for himself and score. His shot is a little bit concerning, he isn't a three point shooter at this point but that will likely improve some. I don't think he will ever be a sharp shooter but I do think he can be similar to Harden from 3 where he is good enough on high volume attempts. He is a better than average creator for a forward. On offense my only concern is efficiency. If he is efficient he can be a beast offensively and be a #1-2 scoring option on a really good team. Defensively is my concern. I don't think he has a lot of upside. If he cleans up his foot work and gives effort he can be an average defender at the 4. I don't think that he has the feet to cover the perimeter really well in the modern NBA, but he can be a good post defender. Holmgren and Smith have separated themselves from everyone else by a little bit IMO. I would also strongly consider taking Ivey over Banchero as well.... I think Ivey has a very high upside.
You nonstop disparage Chet, after saying you don’t watch him. Yet prop up an inferior prospect in Paolo. It’s weird, why is it that you do that? There is no doubt at all who the better prospect and more talented player is.
If Jabari tightens his handles up to the point where he can consistently face up and drive to the bucket, he should go number 1.
Can you provide the link you are getting these numbers from? Smith is just a Jump shooter and Banchero has many other ways to score so I don't know why you are just talking about jump shots since that's the weakest part on Banchero's game. And even then, Banchero is in no way inefficient.
Granted, I wouldn't worry about Paolo against the Rockets defense, and I still think he's a good prospect. For a guy who's value comes from scoring, Paolo isn't a high volume scorer like Davis or Murray nor is he an efficient scorer like Chet. He doesn't space the floor like Jabari, and doesn't play defense like Jabari or Chet.
Look the numbers up you lazy ****. They’re on Sportsreference. And no Paolo isn’t inefficient, but he’s not efficient either. His face up game is his strongest attribute, but he’s not a good shooter, post game is ok. He’s a good offensive player that can be better when/if he tightens up his skills and shooting percentage
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/ TS% factors in points from 2 point range, 3 point range, and the line. I'm not just talking about Jabari's shooting. I'm the one talking holistically about overall efficiency. You didn't understand how Jabari could be more efficient just talking about 2 pointers since that's the weakest part of Jabari's game. My comment on the 3 point shooting was to explain how Jabari's overall efficiency is better because his 3 point shots are much more efficient than Paolo's 2 point shots and the volume of those highly efficient shots covers Jabari's inefficiency at the rim. Banchero scores less per possession when he's shooting than what is expected of the average NBA player despite playing against college players. If you don't consider that inefficient, that's fine. Jabari in college is more efficient overall scoring than Banchero whether or not you consider Banchero efficient or inefficient. On Banchero having a lot of ways to score, he has a lot of ways to score. They just aren't as efficient as Jabari from the 3 point line and considering how much Jabari shoots behind the line, Paolo just isn't as efficient.
Relative to college players in general, no, he's not inefficient. For NBA prospects that are expected to get value from scoring, he's better than TyTy and Davis, but worse than Chet, Jabari, Ivey, Keegan, Griffin, and Mathurin.
Absolutely. Relatively speaking he isn’t but when he’s a offensive first player he needs to be more efficient
I agree with this but efficiency is not the be all end all, You can deny Smith the ball or shots more easily that you can with Banchero and Banchero is a much better playmaker. I believe in valuing efficiency numbers, but you can't use them in a vacuum, Smiths lack of dribbling skills is going to hurt him offensively in the NBA. A layup and a dunk are more efficient than a 3 pointer and Banchero will be able to get those more easily than Smith in the NBA, I agree with your premise I just don't think you can extrapolate them to the NBA from college and for 2 totally different skill sets. Yes, Smith might be more efficient in this metric, but Banchero is not inefficient, and he is asked to do much more.
Interesting to hear that Banchero is inefficient. Doesnt seem to be an entrenched ideal among the basketball landscape, not to say that the stats and numbers are not accurate. Just the same way that that the defensive statistics do no paint a picture that Jabari Smith is a better defender than Banchero. I'd love to add a great talent that knows how to use the midrange game to his advantage. Not everything will come down to a 3 or a dunk in close games. I think Sengun would be the ideal stretch 5 for Banchero and their combined IQ would be nearly unstoppable in game deciding situations. They are both smart defenders who may lack some athleticism and burst, but who can also hold their own in the clutch. They could interchange matchups and responsibilities on the fly and you wouldnt miss a beat as they can both initiate the offense from the high post. https://www.theringer.com/2022/2/2/22913014/paolo-banchero-duke-center-guard-skills
You guys should watch Duke play. It's 5 dudes playing 1 on 1. I'm actually quite surprised with how much ISO is ran, it looks like the Silas Rockets. Paolo finds himself open a lot from three and he lets them fly but his shot from deep would 100% have to develop for him to blossom into a star in the NBA but Duke definitely isn't helping his %s. He's getting lots of looks but the ones that are going in aren't necessarily the easy ones. Gonzaga is like watching the Spurs and Warriors with how much they share the ball. You look at Chet's PPG and you say, why isn't he scoring more. Then you go back a year and look to find that Suggs scored the exact same 14.4 PPG. It's definitely not a stat padding program. It is the most efficient offense of the three and a lot of Chet's looks are wide open because of the team work. I do think his PPG will be higher year 1 in the NBA than it is in college. He has an offensive package and BBIQ that surpasses even Evan Mobley. The only reason I think Mobley is probably the better prospect is his switch ability is otherworldly. Auburn is a tough grind it out style. Jabari benefits from this because of his elite shooting. When the play begins to break down he is essentially their safety valve. He would be the best 3 point shooter on the team instantly in my opinion.
Paolo is not inefficient relative to college NBA players. On dunks and layups, if Paolo was able to get them at sufficient volume and efficiency that they were more valuable than Jabari's 3pointers, Paolo would have a higher TS%. I'm fine with you thinking Paolo is a better prospect for reasons other than efficiency. I find it very weird to think Paolo isn't inefficient versus the other highly touted prospects. On extrapolating stats from college to the NBA, 3PM, 3PA, 3P%, FTM, FTA, and FT% usually have a lot of error, but less error than other metrics. Smith's bread and butter 3 point shooting should be one of the least questioned analytical stats for translation. While I agree Smith will likely have trouble inside, there is a lot of reason to believe he'll likely be asked to do less inside. For Paolo, if his efficiency drops any inside versus NBA defenders, he's going to have a hard time not being an inefficient NBA player unless he adds 3 point shooting. I find Paolo being able to score in a variety of ways inefficiently (relative to Chet and Jabari) not to be very valuable. I'm not asking you to agree with my opinion on who the better prospect is. I view Paolo a lot like Green. He's high risk high reward. If he can be an efficient primary scorer/ballhandler that going to be very valuable. If he's not efficient, all his fancy skills will mean little more than Mo Taylor. That worries me a lot more than Chet being skinny.
I don't think Paolo is inefficient, and I can't really rate him against the other prospects because their games are so different and they are asked to do different things. There are a lot of guys whose games translate better to the pro's because of spacing, and I think Banchero has the highest floor because he has the best all around skill set. The only thing that is not efficient about Pablo is his 3 pt shot and the Holmgren efficiency is his 3 point shot and putbacks and Smiths 3 point ability but Smith does nothing else offensively, yet he is a more efficient scorer? You seem to be putting a ton of value into the ability to shoot a 3 and ignore everything else, Smith can't create his own shot against college competition, yet somehow he is more efficient or a better prospect? How does that make sense? Efficiency is about so much more than 3 are better than 2's and once again Paolo is not an inefficient scorer at all, he is shooting almost 48% as a wing in college.
Yeah it's surprising how the offense is run at Duke, hardly any sets and no real pg play. Smith's guards are garbage, and he is the bailout guy. Chet is essentially a spot up 3 and put back guy, I have no idea why the other guy gets to shoot so much because he struggles with size and takes some bad shots.
