This is the first time I hear someone say that the 2pt shot in college is more likely than the 3pt shot to translate over to the NBA. It is more difficult to dribble past someone because NBA has bigger and faster defenders. How is that easier to translate from college to NBA?
First time? It seems like it has been a recurring theme this draft cycle with phrases like, "the NBA floor is more open", "the paint is less congested" to support it. Personally, I think Paolo and Smith are going to be forced to shoot more threes (Smith much moreso than Paolo).
I think the assumption is that spacing is better in the NBA. But that ignores the fact that defenses are also better in the NBA. Being able to get to the paint at will in college doesn't necessarily mean being able to do it in the NBA with equal ease. This is especially true if your 3pt shooting is not good enough to keep the defense from sagging on you. If we draft Banchero, I hope he will improve his 3pt shooting. That's probably his only weakness on the offensive end. People compare him to Tatum. Tatum wasn't an exceptional 3pt shooter in college, but was still better than Banchero. The good news is, Tatum improved in the NBA. So there's hope.
Banchero's 3 point shooting improved during the season and was better on the biggest stage and even if he shoots the same percentage in the NBA with everything else he does he will still be very good, it's like people are claiming he shot terribly from 3 in college, he will never be a guy you leave alone at the 3 point line so IMO this 3 point percentage thing is kind of nitpicking. Tatum shot less than a percentage point better.
Defenses will try to take away strengths of opposing players. In the playoffs this is especially true for star players. Star players typically have multiple skills at an elite level and take what the defense gives them. If a player’s dibbling is taken away and he faces a trap, how good of a passer is he? Can he make the right read to continue to generate offense? Not every player is good at this. If he’s run off the 3 point line, what does he do efficiently to counter that and if the answer is nothing, can he make plays for others? If I’m the ball handler on a 2-1 fast break and the opponent is cutting off my teammate from receiving a pass, is it more efficient to score at the rim or take a pull up 3 pointer? This is assuming I can actually dribble, make a good pass or finish through contact. You know, the components of efficient scoring we’ve come to see on fast breaks. I can’t imagine a #1 pick wouldn’t be trapped at some point in his career. I can’t imagine they wouldn’t have an efficient transition game. I can’t imagine playoff defenses wouldn’t try to deny the strengths of opposing stars. If we really wanted to understand what is most efficient we’d have to look at every play on a case by case basis. If you don’t think these things will apply to Jabari, then how can you rationally say he’ll be a star? He’s the only player of the 3 who shoots 18% in a game and if you can’t overcome how the defense is scheming for you, then you are in effect a one dimensional role player. That same defense could not stop Banchero because he’s a more complete player and limiting one thing does not completely stop his offense. Still, no one has told me what Jabari does well or even average on offense outside of shooting 3 pointers. This is compounded by the fact that many of those shots are assisted. There are just too many holes in his overall game and that just screams role player to me. It makes people nervous to put Jabari in the role of a star and then have to talk about it. Its a losing argument. It’s easier to just talk about his 3 point shooting and how elite he is at being prepped and ready to receive a pass. This isn’t about the safest pick and it’s not about who the best role player will be. If we are projecting prospects for a #1 pick, why is it taboo to say that 3 point shooting is a skill that players typically get better at? There are multitudes of elite 3 point shooters who came in the league sub par. If those other skills that Banchero has are inherently harder to learn, then why wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume based on history which player has the better chance at becoming a star? Regardless, one player already shows the ability to adapt to circumstance, the other shoots 3/16. All of those missed shots hurt more than simply not shooting at all. Watch Auburn vs Miami again and notice how many shots Jabari attempted while being double teamed instead of just making a simple play to find the open man. Until someone can tell me what else Jabari does on offense, I’m not sure how you can reasonably project him to be a star.
If Jabari is already historically bad at the rim and his entire 2% arsenal would rank him among the bottom 20 players in the NBA and we aren’t even accounting for the skill gap to replicate it at the next level, what hope does he have at improving here? How can you be historically bad at something and expect to get better at it against better competition? Shooting .430 from 2 in college as a 6’10 guy is just horrible and it should concern everyone. You can’t tell me that is the staple for efficiency. People rebuked this by saying he will have more space in the NBA leading to more opportunities, but I have always been inclined to agree with you here. Jabari missed a lot of very simple reads in a much slower system. How is he going to improve his playmaking when he will need to do this in real time and the game is 10x faster? How many years will it take Jabari to become an average ball handler? What are we reasonably expecting his upside to be as a playmaker? Banchero isn’t historically bad at anything. His weakness is the most common thing that is fixed in the NBA among all of these skills. It seems easy to project who would be a star and a focal point of an offense. On Jabari’s part there are so many deficiencies that are so below average that to project him into that at this juncture seems like a lot of wishful thinking.
Same thing as last year Cade/Even, Cade only worked out for the pistons and Mobley only worked out for the cavs and Suggs also didn't want to work out for us. so its between Chet and Paolo unless Chet also skips working out for us.
Arguing about scoring efficiency between the 3 is so dumb. One guy gets spoon fed 3s by his teammates. One guy gets spoon fed dunks by his teammates. One guy creates shots for himself and his teammates. The efficiency comparison is apples to oranges. Stick to arguing about defense because theres actually merit there, on offense they are not even in the same conversation.
But I thought Seth Curry was a better scorer than Steph Curry! After all, his ts% is higher so he must be the better and more efficient scorer!
This. Paolo is the least efficient but he's the one creating most of his offense. I think Paolo is the only one to have Batman potential due to his ability to create and score. Jabari has the highest floor. Chet is just an enigma to me.
If we are all overthinking this then why isn't Paolo the unanimous #1? 3P is weighted more than mid range shots for a very good and much validated reason. And fyi I've never valued Jabari over Chet.
There are two main elements to being a great scorer. Efficiency and volume. Steph is usually the more efficient scorer and I'm thinking always the better scorer by volume. Steph is also the better creator.
Keegan Murray That superior scorer already exists. https://www.tankathon.com/players/compare?players=paolo-banchero--keegan-murray
Big believer in leadership. In fact, I believe leadership ability and "heart" are two often overlooked and underappreciated traits in evaluations.
All this and yet Paolo is not unanimous #1 like Cade was. He is not even unanimous #2. Wonder why that is? Not saying that there is anything to this - just asking questions. *This is how you do it, right @jiggyfly ?
