Great fit on this team. Since we like playing small and taking 3.
Scouting report + Deep-shooting forward with a quick, accurate trigger. Very big for a wing. + Very effective going right but has a weak left hand. Draws fouls, money from the line. + Solid defender with good size. Limited court vision -- drives to score.
Analysis Granger's game isn't always easy on the eyes, iso-ing for 20-footers or pretending he's running a pick-and-roll for something other than his own jump shot, but it is effective. He generated a slew of shots with very few turnovers -- cutting his rate sharply from a season earlier -- and his TS% was well above the norm for a small forward.
Break it down and it was mostly the 3s that did it -- he shot 38.1 percent from distance, but hit only 43.4 percent of his 2s. However, he drew a lot of fouls for a jump shooter and shot 87.3 percent, the best mark of any small forward; between that and the 3s, it offset his subpar shooting inside the arc. In particular, contested long 2s have been a problem for him. He shot only 36.3 percent on 2s beyond 10 feet last season, after hitting 35.0 percent the season before.
As for passing, Granger didn't really do that much -- only 11 small forwards assisted less often -- and that's the biggest limitation on his game. On the flip side, however, he'd also benefit from a more natural point guard running things and getting him cleaner looks at jumpers, rather than forcing him to iso so much.
Defensively, I thought Granger was one of the league's most improved players. His effort was much more consistent than a season earlier, and all his statistical grades were positive. The Pacers gave up 3.6 points per 100 possessions fewer with him on the court and he allowed only a 12.7 PER to opposing small forwards, according to 82games.com. Notably, Indiana also put him in size mismatches less because it hardly ever played small with him at the 4.