We look at several factors to answer this age-old question: Which players are truly stars on bad teams or empty-calorie scorers putting up big numbers in garbage time?
In recent weeks, LaMelo Ball’s place at first place in fan votes among Eastern Conference guards has sparked some serious debate.
Yes, the youngest Ball brother is putting up ridiculous numbers (29.0 points/5.4 rebounds/7.5 assists), but to what avail? At the end of the day, his Charlotte Hornets are still 11-29 and 13th in the weaker Eastern Conference.
This begs the question: Is Ball actually a star-level player worthy of such accolades, or is he just an empty-calorie scorer who puts up big numbers in garbage time?
Well, we’re going to create guidelines for evaluating this type of player, while also deliberating on a few case studies that may (or may not) fit this designation.
How are we going to tell if a player is an empty-calorie scorer? First off, to keep things simple, for a player to qualify for consideration in this conversation, they need to be averaging at least 20 points on a team that is currently boasting a record under .500.
Once a player has met these criteria, the metrics we are going to focus on is true shooting percentage, the team’s net rating when they are on/off the floor, and their DRIP.
- True shooting: Is a player getting buckets efficiently? Or are they just chucking up as many shots as possible? By looking at true shooting, the best measure for scoring efficiency (since it looks at 2s, 3s and free throws), we will get an idea of how easy getting 20 or more points is for these players.
- On/off net rating: What is the difference in a team’s net rating when Player X is on the court versus off it? This variable may be the most important one in our analysis. If a player’s team is losing a lot of games but they are significantly better with Player X on the floor, that player is probably not just producing empty numbers. Meanwhile, if the team is worse/hardly any different with the player on the floor, that isn’t nearly as promising. Great players don’t always turn a bad team into a good one, but they usually improve the team.
- DRIP: While on/off net rating tells us what has happened already, DRIP gives us a predictive tool for projecting a player’s contribution to a team’s plus/minus per 100 possessions.
One caveat to add here. For the players we do deem to be more on the empty-calorie side of things, this isn’t an eternal sentence. This just means they are an empty-calorie player in their specific role on their specific team.
All of these players can be a winning player in the right role/team context.
LaMelo Ball, Charlotte Hornets
What better way to start this exercise than to look at the player who sparked the debate.
Ball’s true shooting percentage (54.8%) is slightly below the league average (36th percentile). However, this may just be a result of him being forced to take a lot of tough shots in the Hornets’ anemic offense (his shot selection could certainly use some work).
As it stands, the team is 27th in offensive TRACR (O-TRACR).
Besides, the other two units of measure scream star trapped on a bad team. Ball’s on/off net rating of plus-7.1 is the second highest of any player we will look at in this analysis, and his DRIP (3.2) is not only the highest of any player on this list, but is also the 16th-highest in the association.
Among those who have played in at least 25 close games (when the game is within six points either way), Ball ranks 10th in the league with 13.8 points per game in those situations. Among those who have played in at least 10 late-and-close games (last two minutes of the final quarter when the game is within four points), he’s fourth with 2.4 points per game.
Ball deserves all the love he’s getting from fans.
VERDICT: STAR
RJ Barrett, Toronto Raptors
The native Canadian who came home is averaging 22.3 points, 6.7 rebounds and 5.9 assists in his first full season in Toronto.
Many people who’ve followed Barrett since the genesis of his NBA career have grown pleased with his development this year, feeling as though he’s reached a new level with the Raptors.
Unfortunately, he doesn’t pass any of the barometers we’ve laid out here.
Like Ball, Barrett’s true shooting (55.1%) is under the league average (39th percentile). However, unlike Ball, his on/off net rating (+0.7) hardly moves the needle, and his DRIP (minus-1.4) only sits around the 50th percentile league wide.
VERDICT: EMPTY CALORIES
Zach LaVine, Chicago Bulls
After an injury-riddled 2023-24 campaign left LaVine virtually untradeable, the two-time All-Star has rehabbed his image in 2024-25. He’s averaging 24.0 points, 4.8 rebounds and 4.5 assists. But did LaVine truly earn this public revitalization?
From the look of things, it seems like he did. LaVine has been one of the most hyper-efficient 20-point scorers in the NBA with a true shooting efficiency of 64.3% (91st percentile).
And remember how we said Ball had the second-highest on/off net rating at +7.1? That’s because LaVine’s on/off rating is 5.2 points higher at +12.3. His DRIP (0.3, 79th percentile) is good, but not great. However, that is likely because his defensive DRIP (-1.5, fifth percentile) is being dragged down by the Bulls’ poor defensive infrastructure (20th in defensive TRACR).
LaVine’s O-DRIP (1.8, 93rd percentile) is much higher than someone like Barrett (0.4, 83rd percentile).
VERDICT: STAR
Jordan Poole, Washington Wizards
Man, this one hurts my soul. On the surface, it seems like Jordan Poole – averaging 21 points, and 4.7 assists – has experienced a similar career arc to LaVine (reinvigorating his trade stock after a down season).
Sadly, it doesn’t seem like his numbers have much substance to them.
After a down efficiency season (53.3%, 21st percentile), Poole’s true shooting has risen 5.5% (58.8%) in 2024-25 to above league-average levels (64th percentile).
Despite that, the Wizards are hardly better with Poole on the floor than they are with him off it (+1.1). On top of that, his DRIP (0.2) doesn’t necessarily jump off the charts.
There haven’t been as many Poole parties in Washington as we’d hoped.
VERDICT: EMPTY CALORIES
Note: These are just a few examples. Now that you have the tools, you can try this exercise with other volume scorers you are curious about!
