What's the Difference Between C.J. Watson and John Lucas III?

The Bulls just lost to the Magic, it's after 11pm, and I'm drunk. Let's look up some fucking stats.

John Lucas III hasn't been awful this season. I've always just assumed he was just a shitty, undersized chucker, but this season he has filled his position relatively well in a time of need with Rose and C.J. missing sizable chunks of the season. In the random arbitrary number of 20 minutes played (6 games), JLIII has averaged 13.2 PPG on 48% eFG%. Pretty okay, right? The Bulls are 4-2 in those games, which is also pretty okay. But how much better is C.J.?

The easiest way to compare the two is just a straight head to head comparison of the two. Lucas has actually played in two more games than Watson this year (29-27, Lucas starting 2 games and Watson starting 8), but Watson has played 237 more minutes.

The per game comparison looks like this:

Player	G	GS	MP	FG	FGA	FG%	3P	3PA	3P%	FT	FTA	FT%	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
John Lucas	29	2	11.9	2.1	5.6	.383	0.8	1.8	.431	0.5	0.6	.824	0.4	0.9	1.3	1.7	0.3	0.0	0.8	0.8	5.5
C.J. Watson	27	8	21.5	3.4	8.5	.400	1.4	3.3	.432	1.6	2.0	.796	0.4	1.5	2.0	3.9	1.0	0.1	1.7	1.9	9.8

Provided by Basketball-Reference.com: View Original Table


C.J. looks like the obvious favorite here. This doesn't exactly tell the whole picture though. C.J.'s higher minutes per game yield higher per game numbers (obviously). Yes I think C.J. is the better player thus justifying him getting more minutes, but let's take a look at each player's per-36 numbers.

Player	G	GS	MP	FG	FGA	FG%	3P	3PA	3P%	FT	FTA	FT%	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
John Lucas	29	2	344	6.5	17.0	.383	2.3	5.3	.431	1.5	1.8	.824	1.2	2.8	4.0	5.1	1.0	0.0	2.4	2.4	16.7
C.J. Watson	27	8	581	5.7	14.3	.400	2.4	5.5	.432	2.7	3.3	.796	0.7	2.5	3.3	6.5	1.7	0.1	2.8	3.2	16.4

Provided by Basketball-Reference.com: View Original Table

That looks a little more even doesn't it? Now depending on how you feel about per-36 numbers, this either results in a "hmmm interesting" or a "this means absolutely dick". I think I fall somewhere between "interesting" and "dick". The eye test tells me that Lucas is undersized and doesn't create offense as well as Watson, and the numbers seem back me up. The points per 36 are about equal, but Lucas needs to take 2.7 more shots per game to keep it that way. Watson has the superior FG%, FT, and FTA. This might have something to do with C.J. being 6'2 and Lucas being 5'11, but that's life in the NBA. Even so, his numbers are not that much higher than Lucas'. There is a 1.7% difference in FG% and a .01% difference in 3P%.  Lucas shoots better from the line but is not as good as C.J. when it comes to getting there. Take note of C.J. averaging 1.4 assists more per 36.

Player	G	MP	PER	TS%	eFG%	ORB%	DRB%	TRB%	AST%	STL%	BLK%	TOV%	USG%	ORtg	DRtg	OWS	DWS	WS	WS/48
John Lucas	29	344	14.1	.472	.451	3.7	8.5	6.2	23.3	1.5	0.0	11.9	25.3	101	102	0.3	0.4	0.7	.103
C.J. Watson	27	581	16.8	.522	.483	2.4	7.7	5.1	28.5	2.6	0.2	15.1	23.3	108	99	1.1	0.9	2.0	.162

Provided by Basketball-Reference.com: View Original Table

The advanced stats finally fill in the rest of the picture. Watson is indeed the superior player, but this doesn't exactly shock anybody. The only thing Lucas trumps Watson in is all rebound percentages (which is very interesting), TOV%, and USG%.

I guess the ultimate point I was trying to reach is: are the differences in these numbers great enough to where you wouldn't want to include C.J. in a trade? It probably depends on the trade, but I wouldn't consider C.J. an untouchable piece of our team. Depending on the trade, I think Lucas, or Mike James, would be able to fill in the backup point guard spot well enough. All of this might mean jack shit since it doesn't look like the Bulls will be major players at the trade deadline, but it's still interesting to look at.