Around the Arc: Banchero vs George, CJ’s Efficiency & Role Players vs Floor Raisers

Hi, & welcome to Around the Arc. A semi-regular thoughts and discussion about anything that is going around the league whether it’s trades or free agency right now or anything I found interesting enough to just talk about. Here, I’ll be looking further into what’s happened and provide that extra context, analysis, and stats, and simply dig a bit deeper into what’s happened.

CJ Was Efficient

So, CJ McCollum just had his most efficient season and I don’t think that was talked about more, considering the jump that he did make.

He had a 59.2% true shooting, which is 0.7 better than his previous career high back in 2017(though wen being compared to league average, he was better then). But when looking at what he was doing in the last couple of years, it’s a significant jump. In 2022, his TS% was 55.3% and in 2023, it was 54.1%.

And it all has to do with shot distribution. For the first time in his career, he had a 3pt rate over 50%. 52.8% of his shots were from behind the arc, which makes sense and should’ve been a thing earlier in his career too.

He’s a career 39.9% 3pt shooter, compared to 48.7% from 2pt(hovered around 50% the last few years too), but that still doesn’t work out math wise, because obviously, 3s are worth more.

Ah, yes. It’s the same old conversation that the analytics ruin the game by making everyone a jump shooter. But at this point, there’s no reason to deny it and continue to go against it for whatever reason.

Because McCollum was already taking a lot of long mid-range jumpers in the first place. For his career, 15.4% of his shots are from 16ft-3pt(it has decreased in the last four years but that was still 12.9%). Though he is a very good shooter for that area. For his career, he’s shooting a pretty good 44.7% and has had four seasons shooting 49% or better. That’s great, but again MATH MATTERS. There’s no reason to go for those shots when you’re just as equally a great 3pt shooter.

Here are some of his shot distribution — his pull up shots and catch and shoot.

Pull up 2s vs 3s:

• 2024: 3.4(48.6%) vs 3.6(43.2%)
• 2023: 5.3(45.4%) vs 2.9(35.6%)
• 2022: 5.7(48.6%) vs 4.2(35.0%)
• 2021: 5.1(47.7%) vs 5.7(36.7%)
• 2020: 6.1(50.1%) vs 3.8(30.8%)

Catch and shoot 3s % of his total shots:

• 2024: 30.3%(42.9%)
• 2023: 24.0%(41.3%)
• 2022: 18.0%(43.1%)
• 2021: 16.6%(47.6%)
• 2020: 17.7%(46.0%)

A few things stand out. McCollum is a shooter shooter. That is absurd consistent efficiency from 2pt on pull ups, pretty good efficiency on pull up 3s and elite off the catch. Being elite at those 3 things is exactly what you want, the only thing then that will change how efficient a player is will be their distribution.

That significant increase to being used more off ball is one of the best things he could have done, especially given how elite he is there. Being more of an off-ball threat is a great thing to be. Being able to score efficiently and not needing the ball to do so just makes fit easier with other stars. Then when you combine that with him taking more pull up 3s instead of pull up 2s, then you can see where the jump in efficiency comes from.

And for a player that has struggled with getting to the rim or to the line, the only other way to be efficient is through a 3pt diet. He just had his career low free throw rate and a career low in shots at the rim, but that can easily be offset by elite shooters.

If that’s what McCollum is going to look like going forward, then he has made him self even more impactful compared to what he was offering previously.

Banchero vs George & A Conversation Around Banchero

I saw this tweet:

Paolo Banchero winning the poll on who’s the better player vs Paul George. I think it’s wild to see that this would’ve been close let alone that he won. To me, this wouldn’t have been a conversation. George should’ve been winning by a lot.

One is the clear better scorer, better shooter, better defender, better suited off-ball, better fit with stars, and even better a shot maker when creating for himself. There shouldn’t be a debate here.

Unless, we’re really projecting what Banchero will turn into and predicting that he’s going to take a massive leap in so many areas, then based on what we know and seen so far, it has to be George.

The only thing that I can see Banchero being ahead is being able to provide rim pressure and draw fouls, but that’s not elite enough to offset everything else. Banchero isn’t pressuring the rim by getting there at will in a way someone like Zion Williamson does.

Right now, Banchero is 111th amongst qualifying players in shots within 3ft. Around the same or lower than Jayson Tatum, Tyrese Maxey, Anthony Edwards, Bam Adebayo, Jalen Williams, Jimmy Butler, Jaime Jaquez Jr, Pascal Siakam, Scottie Barnes, and Josh Giddey. When it comes to his foul drawing, he’s 23rd in free throw rate. That’s clearly not good enough to offset his deficiencies elsewhere, otherwise, he would be more efficient.

Before people will say about the Orlando Magic’s context, why isn’t Franz Wagner affected in the similar way? Why is he shooting 57.0% from 2pt, but Banchero is at 49.3%? Wagner is also taking 41.1% of his shots at the rim per PBP and only 45.9% is assisted compared to Banchero’s 29.7% and 46.6%. Why does it work for Wagner but not Banchero then?

So, even at the thing that Banchero is better than George at, it’s still not at the elite enough level to make up the differnce.

Because outside of that, what is he better at?

The shot selection hurts him a lot. He’s not a good 3pt shooter. He’s not a good shooter from anywhere outside of 5ft. And no, him shooting 63% from long mid-range in the playoffs doesn’t change that.

Let’s look at some of those shooting splits(George vs Banchero):

• 0–3ft: 70.3% vs 70.3%
• 3–10ft: 44.8% vs 40.3%
• 10–16ft: 52.3% vs 39.5%
• 16–3pt: 43.2% vs 42.1%
• 3pt: 41.3% vs 33.9%
• Pull up 2s: 45.4% vs 41.4%
• Pull up 3s: 35.8% vs 32.2%
• Catch and shoot 3s: 45.4% vs 36.4%

Making shots matters a lot, so where exactly does Banchero have an argument over George? Then there are the playtypes:

• Isolation: 1.03 vs 0.89
• Pick and roll ball handler: 1.09 vs 0.83
• Post up: 1.12 vs 0.91
• Spot up: 1.29 vs 1.03

George also has more usage as off-screen and handoff shooter. So, again, where is the argument?

There’s little to no argument as a scorer or creator for himself. There’s absolutely no argument who is the better off-ball player and who can fit with other players.

That’s why I don’t even see the argument that if Banchero was on the Clippers or on the 76ers that he’d be having the same kind of impact. Being on a different team won’t make him a better shooter, be able to run different off ball plays for him, better decision maker, etc.

Another argument I see is that Banchero “lead” the Magic to the playoffs. The Magic were -0.1 with him on in 2799 minutes and 1157 without him. However you want to spin that the Magic have a good bench, certain lineup skewing stuff, it’s still a sign that points to something. And the Magic team is a defensive team. They were winning games because of the defense, and I wouldn’t put Banchero as a game changing defender.

Then, another argument that I don’t like is the playoff argument using a seven game sample where Banchero hit some 3s and made tough shots. Anything can happen in a small sample like that where very tough shot making is a hit or miss at times. I didn’t see anything from him that would make me think he’s better than most players.

This isn’t to say that Banchero is going to be this player always. This isn’t counting him out or calling him trash. But based on what we’ve seen from him and what actually matters to win games other than relying on inefficient, tough shots, there’s zero argument that he’s better than George.

I think this also goes beyond Banchero. This is just the whole bias towards players that can hit tough shot at times, which I could get IF Banchero was actually hitting shots.

This is all shots beyond 10ft and inside the arc. That’s a significant difference, especially at that volume. He’s taking over a quarter of his shots at 0.814 points per shot. That’s just an easy way to continue to be inefficient, especially if the free throw rate doesn’t offset that or higher rim pressure. The defense wins every time allowing that kind of shot diet — we talked about this when it comes to McCollum.

People will again say analytics ruined the game but I don’t know how controversial it is to say that making shots matters.

To end this, here’s also a summary of some of the grades compared to on-ball players in different skills per BBall-Index:

Role(LUBE) Players vs Floor-Raising Players

Staying on a similar topic. There was this tweet that essentially talked about players that have the skillset that is additive and can fit with so many players but doesn’t take anything away.

The Hot Hand Theory podcast thought of this as a joke called LUBE, where it was an idea of “high lube” players whose impact is non-diminishing and fully additive.

This to me goes back to 2 conversations: floor vs ceiling raising players and talent vs fit. That’s what this is all about. There are definitely players that are more talented than others where they can make the Detroit Pistons much better than they are but that same skillset used in a similar way wouldn’t be making a team like the Boston Celtics better(barring a massive change how a player is used). Because how a player is used determines a lot when it comes to impact.

That’s where you see these role players that may not have the skillset of a “star” as in ball handling, shot creation, rim pressure, or high level playmaking. But they make up for it by having a skillset that that can work and fit better with better players.

And the big difference is the player’s approach, mindset, and how they use their tools.

But those conversations get a bit tricky because the player with the better talent or tools or skills SHOULD be better than a role player because they may be objectively better at said things. I think a player that has even average self creation skill and one that can do more if needed should be better than a player who may not even be average at those skills.

The only issue is volume(how they’re being used). An average or even above-average creator will warrant more money and more usage. That makes sense because in a lot of the cases they are good enough to raise the floor of a team. Take guys like Julius Randle, DeMar DeRozan, Brandon Ingram, or even Tyler Herro. They are players that are clearly talented at many things, but they’re also not as talented to warrant the number of shots and touches they get(or their money).

But they should be better if they were to be used in an OG Anunoby role, Duncan Robinson, Mikal Bridges(for the Suns), or Derrick White role. They have better skills than them when it comes to creating their own offense or even creating for others.

Those particular set of skills, though, takes away from guys that are much better than them. And those players either don’t have or aren’t willing to give up the usage and be used like a role player.

They don’t have(or want to use) the LUBE skills and those skills are defense, off-ball movement, passing, and good at efficient looks(getting to the rim and 3pt shooting). None of these skills takes away from anyone else. This just adds on to the team.

Because a lot of those players need to have the ball in their hand to be their best self. They provide impact(however good at it is) with the ball in their hands. And if those players aren’t at an elite enough level to warrant the ball in their hands, those teams aren’t going to do good if they have that high usage.

We’ve seen that with Jrue Holiday, Aaron Gordon, and Andrew Wiggins where in a role where they have the ball in their hands, their impact is capped and isn’t as high. But allow them to do damage in a role player role, then their impact is much greater.

Of course, in the perfect world, every player would just slide into whatever role they’re most suited for. It would be simple to say you’re not good enough to have the ball in your hands, so turn yourself into the best off-ball player that can fit with everyone else.

But it’s not like that and that’s why in a lot of these cases, I would prefer to have role players over players that are more talented. Maybe if those players would 100% buy in, then the ceiling may definitely be higher because they already have the tools/skillset to be better in other high valuable areas. But until that happens, it’s all just in theory and the actual version of role players are a real thing.

This mostly has to do with players on a good team, though. If you’re a lottery team or teams in the play-in range, these players are very much capable of putting up stats that improve you from a 20–30 win team to mid 40s. They can turn your offense from bad to good. There is a clear ceiling, though. And once you reach that ceiling, you’ll need better or players and have those players fit with them too.