Because the more shots you take means the more shots you miss, and the fewer shots your teammates can take. In other words, you are not the only player on your team who can score. If you take an inefficient shot and miss, you waste the opportunity for your team to take a better shot. If you can buy a $30,000 car with $25,000, you have $5,000 more to do other things. That's efficiency. If you buy that same car with $35,000, you waste $5,000 which could have been used on other things. It's all about opportunity cost. You only have a limited number of opportunities (possessions) to score in each game. Player A shoots only 2pt shots at 50%. It takes 20 possessions to score 20 points. Player B shoots only 3pt shots at 35%. It takes 19.04 possessions to score the same 20 points. That's a full possession he gains for his team. But his FG% looks a lot worse than Player A. That's why FG% does not tell you efficiency.
eFG% stands for "Effective Field Goal Percentage", not "Efficient Field Goal Percentage". It is trying to answer the question: if this player shot only 2 pointers, what percentage would he need to shoot to match his current production mixing 2s and 3s. It takes the total number of field goals made, and weights the 3 pointers made by an additional 50%, since a made 3 pointer is worth 50% more. eFG% = (2PTs Made + 1.5 * 3PTs Made)/ (2PT Attempts + 3PT Attempts). TS% goes a step further by including in free throws, and a player's efficiency at the line. TS% = Total Points / (2 * (FGA + (0.44 x FTA)) The stat you want to probably look at for your argument with Paolo / Chet / Jabari would be something like "Expected Points Per Attempt", where you can estimate how many points a shot is expected to return. Some people have done data scraping based on play-by-play descriptions of past games, but you ideally would want to also know the location of the closest defender, which is something that is not publicly available. The below link shows the expected points per location through the first half of games of last year for all shots taken. As one might expect, dunks are the highest expected points per shot, with threes closely behind. You can see there's really no big distinction between almost anything inside the arc; the power of the bonus point for a 3 is really powerful. SOURCE Where this can get interesting is looking at the best players in Expected Points versus those who do well in Points Over Expected. As you can see, guys who create a ton of raw expected points are those who shoot a lot, and those who shoot a lot from good spots on the court. Those are valuable skills; this is where you might expect to see Paolo someday. Meanwhile, looking at the guys who have the best Points Over Expected, you get a long list of tough shot makers, guys who are uniquely able to make very difficult shots at a much higher percentage than the rest of the league can; great snipers from 3, and especially guys who are great in the mid-range. This is where Jabari's upside lies; taking shots that would be bad shots for anyone else, but making them with ease. It's not creating a high quality look for anyone else except for him. Both approaches work, and guys who are on both lists like KD are just straight up monsters. One last interesting thing to me, especially when it comes to Silas; at the time of this analysis, the Rockets were 12-31, 3rd worst in the league at this time. Want to guess what their expected points per shot was in relation to the rest of the league?
His play kind of reminds me of Antoine Walker. He doesn't look 6'10'' to me. He does have the best offensive repertoire of the top 3 prospects. I really like Chet in that he doesn't need the ball much and is a defensive anchor but people are mentioning his frame. They also put examples of how skinny guys can make it such as Durant and KG but those guys are very rare. He reminds me of Porzingis.
Interesting. I thought Steph Curry would be on both lists too. He seems to routinely make some ridiculous shots.
Best playmaker, highest basketball iq of the top 3...i'm scared okc or orlando are going to take him!
I appreciate the well thought out and in-depth response. My statement was based off of the limited amount of Duke basketball I watched this past year. It wasn't as nuanced as your statement. What I think is that Paolo has the tools to be a lot better on defense, but Duke wanted to use him as a facilitator and had him put less effort into defense. This is probably not a popular take, but I would like to see the rockets do the opposite with Paolo. I think that good comps for Paolo Banchero are two people. Maybe I'm crazy. I think he can be a better Shawn Marion. I also think he can be similar to a Chris Webber. Both of those players had great success on similarly constructed teams. A strong point guard, a good center, and they were the good forward that glued those teams together. They also happen to be best under former rockets coaches, which is kind of interesting. I think Weber is an interesting comp. In some of Sacramento's best seasons with Chris Webber, they had guys like Vlade, Doug Christie , Jason Williams, and a sharpshooter like Peja. That team was somewhat of a visionary team for the modern-day NBA. I honestly don't think the rockets are too far off of that team if everyone were to fill their roles. I just don't know if that team would do as well in today's NBA. Regardless, I see Paolo as more of a pick and roll kind of guy initially who learns to play strong defense. I see him facilitating less, and being less of a point forward. I do think in a half court offense, you can run the office through him and Sengun . I just don't see us playing that style often. I think that Paolo can easily be a 20 and 10 guy with good defense who can average 4 assists a game. I think that he doesn't have to be ball dominant to put up those kind of numbers. I see him as somewhat of the ultimate glue guy. I realize also that these are very high hopes. That being said, I'm more of an old school NBA fan. I prefer watching the games and following the eye test, though. I really enjoy coming here and reading more of the advanced metrics and seeing what some of these analytical guys have to say. I apologize that I don't have anything more specific in regards to super analytical style stats to support what I'm saying. Also, just a side note, I dictated this on a voice to text while driving, so I'm sorry if it reads terribly or if there's a lot of misspellings.
Dude, that's too dangerous! Debating on CF while driving? I have thought about the Webber comp. Honestly, I think Sengun is more like Webber, a fancy passer and good low post scorer... if Sengun ever develops a reliable midrange shot like Webber. That Kings team was special. Everybody could shoot and could pass. Christie was the prototype 3&D guy. Too bad the refs robbed them a championship.
And KPJ who is a premier spot up shooter. Most people talk about how good this will be for Green/Paolo but KPJ will no longer have to run the offense. Paolo will. KPJ can do what he does best. Slash and spot up 3s. Paolo can hit him as well in either one of these spots. At the end of the game, in a close out situation, Paolo can either beat you off the dribble and score. Or you can choose to help and he can hit the open man for a wide open 3 or layup. This is what was missing last year because KPJ simply cannot do this. Jalen can kind of do it but he will more or less and up iso-ing and forcing a drive. I don't trust him yet to make the right read. Paolo will make the right read almost every time. Like a certain someone who used to be here. I don't think people truly understand what Paolo is going to be doing in this offense or what he's capable of doing in general.
If we do get Banchero, it will certainly be interesting to see what kind of offense we trot out there as the 2 best passers on our team will both be bigs. Banchero has a decent enough shot that this gives us a legit pick and pop option as well as pull bigs out where he can create off the dribble. Defense will be interesting, but they are all young so we will have to see what happens. As for Sengun, his 2 big challenges will be developing some sort of reliable jumper from somewhere and how he adjusts on D to top flight NBA wings going forward when ISO'd on the perimeter. A short wingspan and slow-ish feet both do not do him any favors, but we will see.
It honestly seems shorter on the court. 7"1 does put him right at the edge of average, maybe a tad lower.
7’1 is definitely not below average. Position wise for a center it’s solid. Plus 3-4 inch wingspan is solid. He doesn’t have KJ or Bane Trex arms
For a big it's lower than pretty much any legitimate starting big in the league or relevant big for that matter. It's not the worst but nothing really to highlight either
