3 NBA peers you should actually be comparing to Paolo Banchero

Everyone is thinking about the big questions at this time of the year.

The season is quickly approaching and everyone is trying to get a handle on the storylines and narratives that will make for the season. Everyone is trying to lay the groundwork for the season ahead.

It is getting tiring of course. Everyone is eager to see these teams actually play and start putting these narratives to bed. Everyone is tired of talking.

The bug though has been planted. The narrative is present. It is inescapable. And the only thing to avoid is to get caught drawing conclusions rather than let the season play out.

Still, Orlando Magic fans especially have become quite defensive because the same narrative keeps coming up. The same story keeps coming up. And the same frustrations keep coming up.

The Magic have a bona fide star in Paolo Banchero. He was an All-Star in his second season and helped lead his team to 47 wins and a seven-game series in his first playoff appearance. He averaged 22.6 points per game, 6.9 rebounds per game and 5.4 assists per game.

He increased those averages in a stunning playoff series, averaging 27.0 points per game, 8.6 rebounds per game and 4.0 assists per game. That included two 30-point games and a historic 38-point showing in Game 7.

For most stars, Banchero's playoff performance would have put to rest any concerns about his shortcomings or gotten everyone excited for what he has in store for his future.

Yet, the conversation still centers on those shortcomings. He is not efficient enough—despite improving his true shooting percentage from 52.9 percent in his rookie year to 54.6 percent in his second season. He turns the ball over too much—still a major problem but one that he is improving on as he handles the ball more.

For whatever reason, Banchero is not good enough despite how good he has been.

This has been seeming the national obsession to criticize Banchero. Whether that is coming from Tim Bontemps on The Hoop Collective or elsewhere, they all seemingly cannot get over this. They spent time in their Eastern Conference tiers podcast discussing whether Banchero is underappreciated or whether he is the next coming of Julius Randle—a high-usage, inefficient player who is difficult to build around.

Or whether that is Zach Lowe and Seth Partnow discussing on the Lowe Post whether they would rather have Paolo Banchero or Scottie Barnes. Never mind only one of those two Rookie of the Year winners has been the lead player on a playoff team.

Seemingly everyone is eager to draw conclusions on him during his second year rather than view him as a player who is going to get better. And a player who is already really good. And this is largely without much of the national audience getting a chance to see him play since the Magic have only had one national TV regular season game in Banchero's two years.

Banchero should be held to a high standard. He should be held to a superstar standard. That is the kind of player he is quickly becoming. And that is the path he is ultimately going to walk.

So why is everyone spending time comparing him to the wrong players and the wrong standard? What is the path he is actually walking?

Who are the players we really should be comparing him to? And how does he actually get there?

Undoubtedly, Banchero still has a lot of work to do. But he is also very much on the right path to stardom as his numbers and history clearly show.

Julius Randle is not the best comparison for Paolo Banchero

During the Draft process, Paolo Banchero indeed got compared to a lot of players as the league tried to figure out who Banchero was and put him into an NBA context after his lone season at Duke.

To the point made on The Hoop Collective earlier this week, Julius Randle was one of those players. Randle is listed at 6-foot-8, 250 pounds and is known for his stellar post game and the use of his size on the interior.

But comparing Banchero to Randle is comparing a player in his prime in Randle to someone who is just getting started.

Randle averaged 11.3 and 13.2 points per game in his first two full seasons (he broke his leg in the first game of his rookie season). He has hit 25.1 and 24.0 points per game the last two seasons with the New York Knicks. But those came with him in his age 28 and 29 seasons.

Banchero has already eclipsed that mark, averaging 20.0 points per game and 22.6 points per game in his first two seasons. Banchero shot 42.7 percent and 45.5 percent overall and 52.9 and 54.6 true shooting percentage in his first two seasons—his age 20 and 21 seasons.

The two are clearly comparable today. But they are also at very different stages of his career.

Randle has bounced around that number as his usage has increased later in his career—his top true shooting percentage with a usage rate higher than 25 percent came in 2018 when he had a 60.6 percent true shooting percentage.

Randle's last three seasons has seen him with true shooting percentages of 50.9 percent, 58.1 percent and 56.9 percent. He has had to do some work to reach an All-Star level.

Banchero can get a lot better. And perhaps it is fair to say Paolo Banchero is at Julius Randle's level of efficiency and production today—and Randle is probably better than him in these categories even if he is sharing the offense with Jalen Brunson as the primary scorer.

But that is assuming Banchero will not get better.

The point is that if Banchero were 28 or 29 years old and still playing at this efficiency, there might be concern. But it is not easy to be efficient and be a high-usage player. And doing that at 20 or 21 years old is extremely difficult.

For the sake of argument, Randle is Banchero's floor. And while that may not be a championship foundation, that is a pretty good player to start off with.

But that is not where Banchero is going to finish. Banchero is clearly aiming for a higher caliber of player.