ORL

2025-26 Season

PAOLO BANCHERO

Orlando Magic | Forward | 6-10
Paolo Banchero
22.4 PPG
8.3 RPG
5.1 APG
34.9 MPG
+0.9 Impact

Banchero produces at an average rate for a 35-minute workload. 3.0 turnovers per game cost 5.8 points of value nightly.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+0.9
Scoring +13.5
Points 22.4 PPG × +1.00 = +22.4
Missed 2PT 6.1/g × -0.78 = -4.8
Missed 3PT 2.6/g × -0.87 = -2.3
Missed FT 1.8/g × -1.00 = -1.8
Creation +5.2
Assists 5.1/g × +0.50 = +2.5
Off. Rebounds 2.1/g × +1.26 = +2.7
Turnovers -5.8
Turnovers 3.0/g × -1.95 = -5.8
Defense +2.1
Steals 0.7/g × +2.30 = +1.6
Blocks 0.6/g × +0.90 = +0.5
Def. Rebounds 6.3/g × +0.30 = +1.9
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.8
Contested Shots 6.3/g × +0.20 = +1.3
Deflections 1.2/g × +0.65 = +0.8
Loose Balls 0.5/g × +0.60 = +0.3
Screen Assists 0.9/g × +0.30 = +0.3
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +17.8
Baseline (game-average expected) −16.9
Net Impact
+0.9
60th pctl vs Forwards

About this model: Net Impact can't measure floor spacing, help defense rotations, or playmaking gravity — so wings and guards are slightly undervalued vs bigs. How Net Impact works

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 227 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 94th
22.4 PPG
Efficiency 46th
56.2% TS
Playmaking 94th
5.1 APG
Rebounding 94th
8.3 RPG
Rim Protection 47th
0.14/min
Hustle 8th
0.07/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 7th
0.09/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

A maddening tug-of-war between suffocating defensive flashes and brutal offensive inefficiency defined Paolo Banchero's erratic start to the season. Too often, empty point totals masked the hidden costs of his stubborn shot selection. Look no further than 11/09 vs BOS, where he dropped 28 points but registered a -2.4 impact score because he settled for contested jumpers instead of initiating functional offense. Conversely, his physical tools occasionally salvaged his value on nights when his jumper completely abandoned him. During 10/25 vs CHI, he hoisted up a miserable 7/21 shooting line, yet still scraped out a +2.4 impact by serving as an exceptional defensive anchor in the half-court. Eventually, the burden of heavy isolation usage caught up to him, culminating in a disastrous 12/27 vs DEN matchup. A chaotic flurry of forced interior passes and live-ball turnovers completely cratered his value, resulting in a staggering -19.9 impact mark.

A volatile stretch of wildly fluctuating value defined Paolo Banchero's midseason run, oscillating between unstoppable bully-ball dominance and maddening shot selection. When he relentlessly attacked the paint as a primary creator, he was an absolute force. This peaked on 01/26 vs CLE, where his physical drives yielded 37 points, 10 rebounds, and a massive +15.9 impact score. Yet his high-usage approach often bled value when he stopped pressuring the rim. Take his 01/07 vs BKN performance, where a gaudy box score of 30 points and 14 rebounds barely moved the needle. He registered a meager +0.2 impact score in that contest because severe hidden negatives heavily offset his raw offensive production. Two nights later on 01/09 vs PHI, his tendency to bog down the offense with contested mid-range pull-ups against set defenses resulted in an abysmal -10.9 impact score. Banchero possesses the sheer strength to completely break opposing frontcourts, but he must realize that settling for isolation jumpers only bails out the defense.

A maddening tug-of-war between unstoppable bully-ball and stagnant perimeter isolation defined this volatile stretch of Paolo Banchero's campaign. You can see the exact cost of his worst habits in the 02/21 vs PHX matchup. Despite pouring in 26 points and grabbing 14 rebounds, his high-volume inefficiency—missing 17 shots from the floor—dragged his net rating into the red for a -1.4 impact. Conversely, when he actually leveraged his physical advantages inside, the results were devastating. During a 03/03 vs WAS clinic, Banchero abandoned the contested jumpers to score 37 points, generating a monstrous +18.2 impact driven entirely by elite shot selection and interior force. He even found ways to salvage his nightly value when his jumper completely broke down. Look at the 03/21 vs LAL contest; he shot a miserable 4-for-14 for just 16 points, yet posted a +6.0 impact because his phenomenal defensive engagement completely bailed out his brutal offensive decisions.

IMPACT TIMELINE

Game-by-game performance vs average. Green = above average, red = below.

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Banchero's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~8 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 51% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Defensive difference-maker. Banchero consistently forces tough shots and protects the rim — opponents shoot worse when he's guarding them.

Slight upward trend. First-half impact: +0.1, second-half: +1.7. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 6 games. Longest cold streak: 5 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 65 games with tracking data. Shows who guarded this player on offense and who he guarded on defense, with their shooting stats in those matchups.

ON OFFENSE: WHO GUARDED HIM

His shooting stats against each primary defender this season

M. Bridges 135.3 poss
FG% 48.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 37
J. Johnson 103.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 20
P. Siakam 99.2 poss
FG% 40.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 22
A. Wiggins 83.2 poss
FG% 41.7%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 30
B. Adebayo 81.5 poss
FG% 43.8%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 19
B. Coulibaly 80.2 poss
FG% 41.7%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 15
J. Jackson Jr. 72.3 poss
FG% 47.1%
3P% 62.5%
PPP 0.3
PTS 22
P. Achiuwa 70.1 poss
FG% 41.2%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 18
S. Barnes 69.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 14
E. Mobley 67.9 poss
FG% 51.9%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.6
PTS 41

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

How opponents shot when he was the primary defender. Lower FG% = better defense.

M. Bridges 121.8 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 38.5%
PPP 0.22
PTS 27
J. Johnson 104.2 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 18
P. Siakam 96.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 57.1%
PPP 0.28
PTS 27
A. Wiggins 79.5 poss
FG% 63.6%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.24
PTS 19
M. Turner 70.1 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.09
PTS 6
N. Clowney 66.0 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 4
S. Barnes 65.8 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 8
J. Jaquez Jr. 65.6 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 8
E. Mobley 65.0 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 12
T. Camara 64.9 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 9

SEASON STATS

66
Games
22.4
PPG
8.3
RPG
5.1
APG
0.7
SPG
0.6
BPG
46.0
FG%
31.8
3P%
77.6
FT%
34.9
MPG

GAME LOG

66 games played