Well... I'm sure if these two guys were here they'd be wondering why we felt we had to compare them!
I don't think either of them is "a sure thing," obviously -- truth is that almost nobody is!
"Turnover %: an estimate of number of turnovers per 100 plays," says basketball-reference.com. But, what's a "play" in this sentence I wonder? One of the team's plays, or a play by the individual player himself?
As a sophomore, Bane turned the ball over more per 40 minutes than he did as a senior -- on significantly lower usage.
As a freshman, Jones turned the ball over way less than he did as a sophomore -- again on lower usage (tho not all that much lower).
As to "Bane's 3 point shooting... help(ing) his team win more" than Jones, I wonder whether the following is a relevant way to look at it:
1. Bane -- per 40 minutes this year, he used 15.1 shots & 2 FTAs to produce 18.4 points. Figure each FTA as like 1/2 a shot (since it can only produce 1 point), & his 18.4 points were produced by 16.1 overall scoring attempts.
2. Jones -- per 40 minutes, he used 16.1 shots & 10.7 FTAs to produce 26 points. Treat each FTA as like 1/2 a shot again, & Jones's 26 points were produced by 21.45 overall scoring attempts.
Per 40 minutes, IOW, Jones produced 7.6 more points than Bane on 1 more FGA & 8.7 more FTAs -- call it 5.35 more overall scoring attempts -- which is
extremely hard to do. Why? Because, obviously, FTAs are incredibly more efficient than FGAs, whether 2 pointers or 3 pointers! & that's how Jones got them.
IOW, why would we not say "Jones's ability to get to the line helps his team win more" than Bane?
OTOH, if we take note of Jones's 1.2 extra turnovers -- treat them as missed FGAs rebounded by the other team -- it definitely narrows the gap in scoring impact: now it's like 7.6 more points on 6.55 more scoring attempts. That's still hard to do.
But, it's not otherworldly. In fact, if Bane took 5.75 more 3-pointers per 40 minutes than he does, & if he made them at his overall .442% on the year, he'd score exactly 7.6 more points.
So, in that sense, we might conclude that (figuring in Jones's extra turnovers) the two players look to be exactly even in the way each one's extremely efficient scoring "helps his team win." Make sense?
With one difference, of course: Bane
doesn't take those extra 5.75 3-pointers per 40 minutes (while keeping his outstanding % the same). Jones's efficiency is on significantly higher usage. Ergo, I fear we might have to conclude that Mason Jones's scoring "helps his team win more." No?
Of course, "helps his team win" includes a lot more than offensive efficiency, so I'm not concluding... anything!... but especially not that Jones is a better prospect than Bane. In fact, I don't think he is.
Despite Jones being the better scorer, I think that overall they're just about even. After all, Bane is a bit better rebounder, a bit better on assists & blocks, & he fouls quite a lot less. Jones gets more steals, but overall Bane has been the more solid in that stuff overall.
What's it all mean? They'd both be pretty solid picks at #37 I believe. But... there may be better available!