Banchero doesn't need to get to 25, 11 and 5 to be better than Julius, as those are meaningless box score numbers that were an anomaly, played during a season with no crowds (there's a reason why he hasn't been able to replicate them in any manner, in any other season). I say he's the good to Julius' evil because he plays in a more impactful manner - he's not selfish by purely accumulating volume stats to make himself look better on paper than he does irl. Julius has managed to fool a lot of folks who look at his surface stats and mistake that for him being a good player, when he doesn't expend energy for actions that aren't in the box score.
He's incapable of playing winning basketball. That's why he's evil.
Their size, athleticism and styles of play are nearly identical:
- They're both big body tweeners (6'9"-6'10"; 240lbs-250lbs)
- Their primary diet of offense is under-the-rim bully ball (while both have above-average athleticism, they're not explosive athletes)
- Awkward touch (neither are particularly creative at finishing)
- Limited footwork
- Inconsistent jumpshots
- Dissonant defensive effort.
The only real notable difference is Banchero has a far greater feel for the game, which is only going to lead him to being a more impactful player. Again, that's why he's the good.
The David Lee comparison doesn't make sense because he wasn't a power player. He didn't overwhelm his opponent by trying to physically dominate them, hunting for the mismatch at every opportunity. That's where Julius and Banchero are eerily similar; they force themselves down on the block and bully their matchup to get to the rim, and their respective perimeter games are only complementary to that.
For a rookie he gets to the line like a mf
