[valentine]

 I’m a big general believer in college FT% translating to improved overall shooting/scoring in the NBA. You look at a lot of the bad shooters in the NBA, and they shot poorly from the FT line in college (and in the NBA, mostly).

The ability to make FTs consistently seems to transcend basketball experience. Guys who are relatively new to the game can still shoot well from the line. Guys who have been playing bball all their lives and still can’t shoot well from the FT line is a red flag. 

Jusuf Nurkic was pretty new to the game and he shot 70something from the FT line in Adriatic League play the year before he was drafted. That told me he had very solid touch, which he’s shown to be true in the NBA.

Michael Kidd-Gilchrist is the one example I could find (didn’t look too hard) that had a good FT% in college but never (yet) really put it together as a mid-range shooter. Even his FT% is down from college, from 75% to just above 70% career average in the NBA.

In general though, I think college FT% is very significant for predicting NBA shooting success.

With that said, there are a few top prospects with worrisome FT%, and a few overlooked prospects with a FT% high enough to suggest untapped growth as shooters, despite their current reputations.

Okafor: 51% is a big red flag. I wouldn’t bet on him ever becoming a good mid-range jump shooter, which means the opposing center is always going to be able to camp out in the lane. In today’s NBA, this is a big no-no.

Mudiay: 57% is very bad for a guard, even in China. John Wall and Derrick Rose both shot over 70% from ft in college. Rondo shot 57% both years in college. Can anybody think of a guard who shot in the 50% but turned into a good shooter in the NBA?

D’Angelo Russell’s 76% is solid, but not indicative of an elite pure shooter like Curry. And Russell’s 3 point % plummeted against teams with winning records, from 50% against crap teams to 35% vs winning teams. If this guy is your go-to scorer in the NBA, he may hover around 35% from 3 for his career, like a Tim Hardaway Jr.

WCS getting his FT% up to 62% from 37% as a freshman is a great achievement, but I suspect he’ll always be a liability from mid-range. No biggie, so does everybody else.

Winslow shooting 64% from FT is enough to make me doubt his 3 point shot at the NBA level. I know he shot 41% from 3 in college, on low/medium volume, but I’d guess he’ll shoot 30-35% from 3 over his career. Good enough.

Stanley Johnson shooting 74%, ten points higher than Winslow, combined with Johnson’s solid 37% from 3 suggests his 3 point shot will translate fairly well to the NBA. Probably 33-37% from 3 each year.

Myles Turner’s 84%  is first rate for a big man, and excellent for anybody. This guy will be a beast from mid-range out to at least the corner 3 point line in the NBA.

Kaminsky’s 78% is also excellent for a big man, and shows just how impressive Turner’s 84% is.

Dekker’s 71% from FT suggests he’s probably not going to ever be an elite 3 point shooter in the NBA, but he can be solid, like in college. But some real JAG potential as a shooter.

Bobby Portis’ 74% suggests good things, especially for a 4/5 big man. But he may never be great from anywhere but the corner 3. Not as pure a shooter as Turner and Kaminsky.

Trey Lyles’ 74% suggests the same as Portis’. Probably more of a corner 3 threat, which is still great for a big man.

Tyus Jones’ 89% suggests he’s about as pure as pure shooters get. Sky’s the limit as an NBA shooter if  his defense is good enough to get him on the court for regular minutes.

Looney’s 64% suggests his 41% 3 point shooting on low volume may be significantly misleading. His ability to be a stretch 4 is very much up in the air, and no sure thing by any means.

Hollis-Jefferson’s 71% on very high attempts gives me more convidence in his NBA shooting than Looney’s. If Hollis-Jefferson picks his spots, I can see him developing a very solid mid-range jumper and perhaps eventually a corner 3.

Jerian Grant’s 78% ft shooting on almost 6 fta/game suggests great things for his future in the NBA. He should be a knock down mid-range shooter, at least from a few favorite spots. And a good/great 3 point shot in the future cannot be ruled out.

RJ Hunter’s 89% suggests he’s like Tyus Jones, about as pure a shooter as they come, at least when wide open. 

Robert Upshaw’s 43% FT shooting suggests that his new attempt to model his game after LaMarcus Aldridge may be highly ill-advised.

Christian Wood’s 73% means he’s probably no sure thing as a stretch four, at least not from the top of the key, but he still has plenty of promise as a steady corner 3 shooter and adequate enough for a big from the deep 3 point range.

Rashad Vaughn’s 70% suggests he may be more of an inefficient chucker in the NBA than a major shooter.

Jarell Martin’s 69% FT shooting suggests he’s a project but a promising one.

Chris McCullough’s 56% FT shooting suggests he’s a gamble of the riskiest kind, aka second round.

Delon Wright’s 84% is excellent, and makes me think he’ll shoot at least the 35% from 3 in the NBA that he did from the college line.

Andrew Harrison’s 79% FT shooting suggests he’ll be a much better shooter in the NBA than Mudiay, and the threat of that shot will help close the gap between the lane penetration ability of the two point guards.

Rakeem Christmas’ 71% FT shooting suggests the recent addition of a mid-range jumper is very real and legit. Which he showcased in 5 on 5 action at the Combine, further raising his stock.

Dakari raised his ft% from 40something to 62% in his sophomore year. That’s a great improvement, like WCS and Harrell, but his future as a mid-range shooter is obviously very dicey. But I do think Dakari can become consistent with some of his post moves.

Cliff Alexander’s 67% strikes me as very promising for a big man who is relatively new to the game. I think he will eventually surprise with a couple basic but effective post moves, and with a mid-range jump shot that is just good enough. If he was shooting 50% from the line like Okafor I’d be much much lower on Alexander. But he could be a real steal if he falls to the second.

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[trelos6Participant]

If you look at a guy like Westbrook, sure he is a bit spotty from 3 and long 2’s, but he is almost automatic from the line.  88% or so.  Westbrook has the athleticism and the great shooting touch.

Same with KD, and Harden.  Both guys are going at 88%+ from the line.

I think FT% is a solid indicator for success.  If you can’t shoot it from the line when no-one is guarding you, it’s going to be hard to score against NBA quality defense.

Jabari shot 75% from the line at Duke, and 70% for the Bucks.  Melo was around 70% in college and is averaging around 81% for his NBA career.  I think this might be a realistic comparison for Jabari if he can stay healthy.

 

 

 

  

[trelos6Participant]

If you look at a guy like Westbrook, sure he is a bit spotty from 3 and long 2’s, but he is almost automatic from the line.  88% or so.  Westbrook has the athleticism and the great shooting touch.

Same with KD, and Harden.  Both guys are going at 88%+ from the line.

I think FT% is a solid indicator for success.  If you can’t shoot it from the line when no-one is guarding you, it’s going to be hard to score against NBA quality defense.

Jabari shot 75% from the line at Duke, and 70% for the Bucks.  Melo was around 70% in college and is averaging around 81% for his NBA career.  I think this might be a realistic comparison for Jabari if he can stay healthy.

 

 

 

  

[MopgrassParticipant]

 Let’s remember that guys can improve quite a bit (the WCS’s of the world). But, for the most part, I think your analysis is right on. I’ve been using the same measure. I think the outliers are important: Tyus Jones and RJ Hunter are going to be excellent 3 point shooters and Myles Turner should be solid out to the corner. Though some are concerned about the athleticism of Jonss and Hunter(separate issue). I’ve also been quite scared of Mudiay’s FT’s, especially since he’s a guy who draws tons of fouls. Also, he didn’t sound like the brightest guy when they talked to him on lottery night. 

[MopgrassParticipant]

 Let’s remember that guys can improve quite a bit (the WCS’s of the world). But, for the most part, I think your analysis is right on. I’ve been using the same measure. I think the outliers are important: Tyus Jones and RJ Hunter are going to be excellent 3 point shooters and Myles Turner should be solid out to the corner. Though some are concerned about the athleticism of Jonss and Hunter(separate issue). I’ve also been quite scared of Mudiay’s FT’s, especially since he’s a guy who draws tons of fouls. Also, he didn’t sound like the brightest guy when they talked to him on lottery night. 

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

Plus, it depends largely on where you actually take most of your shots from as opposed to where you can take your shots from. It’s really more about putting in the work on your shot as opposed to what you shot in college. Anthony Davis has become an awesome midrange jump shooter in the NBA after shooting 71% FT in his one year at Kentucky. Meanwhile, Andre Drummond shot 492-938 (52.5% FG) and shot 38.9% FT. He is a center I still think brings value to the equation by getting shots close to the hoop and offensive rebounding.

Jahlil Okafor is probably never going to take many shots from outside of 10-12 feet, but his value will be in being able to get a lot of shots close to the hoop. He has shown the ability to do so often and efficiently. He may be less efficient in the NBA, but he still has this ability that seems to be lost among other centers. For all of the talk about the league changing and centers "not needing to play in the post", it still can be a very helpful quality. After all, getting close, high percentage shots is still something I think matters, as opposed to just stretching the floor.

Myles Turner and Karl-Anthony Towns are both much better shooters than Jahlil Okafor, but it does not necessarily make them better offensive options in the NBA. I think the big thing that helped KAT was taking fewer outside shots than he was known to do at the HS level. His post game improved, he got more offensive rebounds and has shown a very desirable NBA style game for a center. Plus, want to know how well they both shot on jump shots? Myles was 24-78 (30.8%) and KAT was 8-28 (28.6%). They both got a vast majority of their offense in other ways. They will definitely both get better and the NBA is a more wide open game, but they are probably not going to be burning people from the outside for at least another few years.

Their is a difference between being a good FT shooter and being a high caliber offensive option. There are a lot of talented players who have a difficult time creating shots or taking the right ones. The other thing you notice is, centers do not tend to take that many jump shots. The threat of the jump shot does keep the defense honest, though on the contrast, it can bring the defense in when their is a low post threat. Also, the top center scorers are likely not taking many more than 5 jump shots per game, if that. I am not saying Okafor shooting poorly from the line does not matter. It is just that it does not necessarily make a Myles Turner a better offensive threat unless he makes some serious progress as an overall offensive option.

Frank Kaminsky was awesome as far as shooting for a big man, but the NBA is a different challenge. This is not to say that Kaminsky can still not be a strong offensive threat, but lets look at a guy like Doug McDermott. Dougie shot 86.4% FT as a senior leading the nation in scoring. He shot 45.8% 3PT for his college career. I know he had injuries to overcome and he only shot 15 FT’s, but his numbers changed. It can be about the shots you can get as opposed to the shots you can make.

Now, my take on some of the other guys:

• Emmanuel Mudiay: His shot has been something that people have been picking apart for a long time, but do not think it is as beyond reproach as many people seem to think. Really small FT sample size in China, plus he shot 69.6% FT during his last year at the EYBL. He may not ever be a tremendous FT shooter, though think he is somewhere in the 70’s eventually. Not Rondo as far as that goes. Plus, he is not afraid to drive and get to the FT line. Baron Davis was a streaky FT shooter and shooter in general, did not stop him from being one of the better offensive PG’s in the NBA. Mudiay is not Baron, but he should be a nice offensive player. Also, to answer your question, Avery Bradley shot 54.5% FT in college, 78% career FT shooter in the NBA. Guys can get better. Going 27-47 is not necessarily a life sentence. I know you have stated you don’t believe in small sample sizes, but they can at the very least be misleading.
• I agree that D’Angelo Russell is not Stephen Curry. No one is Stephen Curry in this draft class. But, James Harden shot 75.5% FT in college. He became an 86.8% FT during the season, is at 92.3% FT in the play-offs and is a 37% 3PT shooter for his career. D’Angelo shot the ball really well and while it is more difficult to get your shot off, but he was a much better jump shooter than Hardaway Jr, even during his junior year in comparison to Russell’s freshman year. Hardaway Jr was a 69.4% FT shooter as a junior, shot 72.4% for his college career and is at 81.3% through his first two NBA seasons.
• With Justise Winslow, I think the three point percentage really is throwing people off. There is certainly nothing wrong with Justise Winslow shooting 41.8% 3PT and is certainly a sign that he can at least become a decent shooter from range in time. It is all of his jump shots inside the arc that worry me (or the lack thereof). When people talk about Winslow being historically bad as a midrange jump shooter, they are bringing up the fact he went 1-20 on his jumpers inside the arc. MKG did not take three pointers, but he was a better jump shooter inside the arc than Winslow (by a fair margin). Winslow can develop, but his 64% is pretty indicative of his needing work as a shooter.
• Just want to point out a couple major anomalies to your theory, both 2nd picks, both have the last name Williams and both insane shooters before they entered the draft, not so much in the NBA. Marvin shot 42.3% 3PT (he made one every other game, but that is a damn solid %) and 84.8% FT. Derrick shot 56.8%! (making just over 1 per game) and was at 74.6% FT (up from 68% as a freshman). Marvin is a 34% career 3PT shooter and Derrick is 30.1%. Both a tad under their college FT marks (Marvin 80%, Derrick 70.3%). Neither particularly potent midrange shooters. Neither is comparable to Justise Winslow, who is a much more explosive athlete and better perimeter defender, just both came to mind when talking about sample size of long range shooting numbers.
• Stanley Johnson’s jump shooting numbers were actually pretty awesome. 24-51 inside 3 (47.1%). Again, small sample size, but much more comforting than Justise’s numbers from inside the arc. His long range jumper leaves a bit more to be desired, as does his somewhat low release point, but he should work on it to become pretty decent. The big thing will be finishing at the basket. That is where he really struggles and where Justise Winslow’s athleticism makes you feel better about what he brings to the table at the next level.
• Rondae shot 23-53 (43.4%) on jumpers inside the arc. Still have a very hard time trusting him on the outside. This is more based on mechanics and lack of confidence in his outside jumper. If he develops a shot from beyond the arc, it would be pretty surprising. 

I could go on, but will stop with this little note. The way a player shoots when he is not defended does not necessarily translate to how well he will do when the game is being played. You seem to be more taking a leap of faith than using actual statistical analysis and while I admire you putting work into the post, it seems to leave a lot to be desired as far as what these players become in the NBA. Some of the best players to have ever played the game have been poor to moderate FT shooters. Look at the centers in the Western Conference Final.

Players can become better FT shooters and some good FT shooters have not necessarily been the most potent midrange jump shooters. Jason Kidd was not a great FT shooter and while he was never known for the potency of his midrange game, he became a much better FT shooter and long range shooter as time progressed (like during the 2011 play-offs). Shooting is something that can be difficult for some players, but a single year of college or pro basketball does not necessarily mean you cannot improve or there is not more to the story. It will be more about being able to get shots as opposed to these guys FT percentage. 

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

Plus, it depends largely on where you actually take most of your shots from as opposed to where you can take your shots from. It’s really more about putting in the work on your shot as opposed to what you shot in college. Anthony Davis has become an awesome midrange jump shooter in the NBA after shooting 71% FT in his one year at Kentucky. Meanwhile, Andre Drummond shot 492-938 (52.5% FG) and shot 38.9% FT. He is a center I still think brings value to the equation by getting shots close to the hoop and offensive rebounding.

Jahlil Okafor is probably never going to take many shots from outside of 10-12 feet, but his value will be in being able to get a lot of shots close to the hoop. He has shown the ability to do so often and efficiently. He may be less efficient in the NBA, but he still has this ability that seems to be lost among other centers. For all of the talk about the league changing and centers "not needing to play in the post", it still can be a very helpful quality. After all, getting close, high percentage shots is still something I think matters, as opposed to just stretching the floor.

Myles Turner and Karl-Anthony Towns are both much better shooters than Jahlil Okafor, but it does not necessarily make them better offensive options in the NBA. I think the big thing that helped KAT was taking fewer outside shots than he was known to do at the HS level. His post game improved, he got more offensive rebounds and has shown a very desirable NBA style game for a center. Plus, want to know how well they both shot on jump shots? Myles was 24-78 (30.8%) and KAT was 8-28 (28.6%). They both got a vast majority of their offense in other ways. They will definitely both get better and the NBA is a more wide open game, but they are probably not going to be burning people from the outside for at least another few years.

Their is a difference between being a good FT shooter and being a high caliber offensive option. There are a lot of talented players who have a difficult time creating shots or taking the right ones. The other thing you notice is, centers do not tend to take that many jump shots. The threat of the jump shot does keep the defense honest, though on the contrast, it can bring the defense in when their is a low post threat. Also, the top center scorers are likely not taking many more than 5 jump shots per game, if that. I am not saying Okafor shooting poorly from the line does not matter. It is just that it does not necessarily make a Myles Turner a better offensive threat unless he makes some serious progress as an overall offensive option.

Frank Kaminsky was awesome as far as shooting for a big man, but the NBA is a different challenge. This is not to say that Kaminsky can still not be a strong offensive threat, but lets look at a guy like Doug McDermott. Dougie shot 86.4% FT as a senior leading the nation in scoring. He shot 45.8% 3PT for his college career. I know he had injuries to overcome and he only shot 15 FT’s, but his numbers changed. It can be about the shots you can get as opposed to the shots you can make.

Now, my take on some of the other guys:

• Emmanuel Mudiay: His shot has been something that people have been picking apart for a long time, but do not think it is as beyond reproach as many people seem to think. Really small FT sample size in China, plus he shot 69.6% FT during his last year at the EYBL. He may not ever be a tremendous FT shooter, though think he is somewhere in the 70’s eventually. Not Rondo as far as that goes. Plus, he is not afraid to drive and get to the FT line. Baron Davis was a streaky FT shooter and shooter in general, did not stop him from being one of the better offensive PG’s in the NBA. Mudiay is not Baron, but he should be a nice offensive player. Also, to answer your question, Avery Bradley shot 54.5% FT in college, 78% career FT shooter in the NBA. Guys can get better. Going 27-47 is not necessarily a life sentence. I know you have stated you don’t believe in small sample sizes, but they can at the very least be misleading.
• I agree that D’Angelo Russell is not Stephen Curry. No one is Stephen Curry in this draft class. But, James Harden shot 75.5% FT in college. He became an 86.8% FT during the season, is at 92.3% FT in the play-offs and is a 37% 3PT shooter for his career. D’Angelo shot the ball really well and while it is more difficult to get your shot off, but he was a much better jump shooter than Hardaway Jr, even during his junior year in comparison to Russell’s freshman year. Hardaway Jr was a 69.4% FT shooter as a junior, shot 72.4% for his college career and is at 81.3% through his first two NBA seasons.
• With Justise Winslow, I think the three point percentage really is throwing people off. There is certainly nothing wrong with Justise Winslow shooting 41.8% 3PT and is certainly a sign that he can at least become a decent shooter from range in time. It is all of his jump shots inside the arc that worry me (or the lack thereof). When people talk about Winslow being historically bad as a midrange jump shooter, they are bringing up the fact he went 1-20 on his jumpers inside the arc. MKG did not take three pointers, but he was a better jump shooter inside the arc than Winslow (by a fair margin). Winslow can develop, but his 64% is pretty indicative of his needing work as a shooter.
• Just want to point out a couple major anomalies to your theory, both 2nd picks, both have the last name Williams and both insane shooters before they entered the draft, not so much in the NBA. Marvin shot 42.3% 3PT (he made one every other game, but that is a damn solid %) and 84.8% FT. Derrick shot 56.8%! (making just over 1 per game) and was at 74.6% FT (up from 68% as a freshman). Marvin is a 34% career 3PT shooter and Derrick is 30.1%. Both a tad under their college FT marks (Marvin 80%, Derrick 70.3%). Neither particularly potent midrange shooters. Neither is comparable to Justise Winslow, who is a much more explosive athlete and better perimeter defender, just both came to mind when talking about sample size of long range shooting numbers.
• Stanley Johnson’s jump shooting numbers were actually pretty awesome. 24-51 inside 3 (47.1%). Again, small sample size, but much more comforting than Justise’s numbers from inside the arc. His long range jumper leaves a bit more to be desired, as does his somewhat low release point, but he should work on it to become pretty decent. The big thing will be finishing at the basket. That is where he really struggles and where Justise Winslow’s athleticism makes you feel better about what he brings to the table at the next level.
• Rondae shot 23-53 (43.4%) on jumpers inside the arc. Still have a very hard time trusting him on the outside. This is more based on mechanics and lack of confidence in his outside jumper. If he develops a shot from beyond the arc, it would be pretty surprising. 

I could go on, but will stop with this little note. The way a player shoots when he is not defended does not necessarily translate to how well he will do when the game is being played. You seem to be more taking a leap of faith than using actual statistical analysis and while I admire you putting work into the post, it seems to leave a lot to be desired as far as what these players become in the NBA. Some of the best players to have ever played the game have been poor to moderate FT shooters. Look at the centers in the Western Conference Final.

Players can become better FT shooters and some good FT shooters have not necessarily been the most potent midrange jump shooters. Jason Kidd was not a great FT shooter and while he was never known for the potency of his midrange game, he became a much better FT shooter and long range shooter as time progressed (like during the 2011 play-offs). Shooting is something that can be difficult for some players, but a single year of college or pro basketball does not necessarily mean you cannot improve or there is not more to the story. It will be more about being able to get shots as opposed to these guys FT percentage. 

[JoeWolf1]

 As much as I am a fan of a refined fundamental player, who is efficient, and makes the most of his opportunties, and quite frankly hitting your free throws is a big part of that. 

I need to be a realist.

There have been a number of players who have exceeded at a high level despite being average 67-74% free throw shooters, or even poor ones. There are the Wilt’s and Shaq’s of world who’s physical dominance propels high scoring games, but the curious part is that when you look at the All-Time scoring list of the NBA there is very little, if any, correlation between free throw shooting, and being an elite player.

The All-Time list is as follows

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar – career 72% (65% as a rookie)

2. Karl Malone – career 74% (48% as a rookie)

3. Kobe Bryant – career 84% (82% as a rookie)

4. Michael Jordan – career 84% (85% as a rookie)

5. Wilt Chamberlain – career 51% (58% as a rookie)

6. Shaquille O’Neal – career 53% (59% as a rookie)

7. Dirk Nowitzki – career 88% (77% as a rookie)

8. Moses Malone – career 76% (66% as a rookie)

9. Elvin Hayes – career 67% (64% as a rookie)

10. Hakeem Olajuwon – 71% (61% as a rookie)

If you look at the top 10 scorers in NBA history, only 3 out of 10 shot over 80% on their careers, and only 4 out of 10 shot 75% on their careers. There are so many things that can combine to create a good or great NBA scorer, but history illustrates it’s not necessary to be successful in the league.

Of course it’s important, and some charity stripe brick layers on this list could be 1,000’s of points higher over the course of a career if they had been better, but being an average or below average free shooter wouldn’t scare me off. Karl Malone didn’t shoot over 60% on a single season until his 3rd year, and he was one of the best mid-range shooting big men of all time. Hakeem Olajuwon was off to a shaky start after never topping 60% after three years at the univeristy of Houston, but refined athleticism into a skilled overall package.

If I’m looking at a big man, NBA translatable ability and size paired with athleticism is the major factor. Free throw shooting is more like extra icing. Some correlations regarding certain shooting percentages relating to improved mid-range games down the line I feel are farily accurate, but as your title indicates, I don’t think it has a ton to do with overall success if the rest of the package is that of a translatable NBA scorer. 

 

[JoeWolf1]

 As much as I am a fan of a refined fundamental player, who is efficient, and makes the most of his opportunties, and quite frankly hitting your free throws is a big part of that. 

I need to be a realist.

There have been a number of players who have exceeded at a high level despite being average 67-74% free throw shooters, or even poor ones. There are the Wilt’s and Shaq’s of world who’s physical dominance propels high scoring games, but the curious part is that when you look at the All-Time scoring list of the NBA there is very little, if any, correlation between free throw shooting, and being an elite player.

The All-Time list is as follows

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar – career 72% (65% as a rookie)

2. Karl Malone – career 74% (48% as a rookie)

3. Kobe Bryant – career 84% (82% as a rookie)

4. Michael Jordan – career 84% (85% as a rookie)

5. Wilt Chamberlain – career 51% (58% as a rookie)

6. Shaquille O’Neal – career 53% (59% as a rookie)

7. Dirk Nowitzki – career 88% (77% as a rookie)

8. Moses Malone – career 76% (66% as a rookie)

9. Elvin Hayes – career 67% (64% as a rookie)

10. Hakeem Olajuwon – 71% (61% as a rookie)

If you look at the top 10 scorers in NBA history, only 3 out of 10 shot over 80% on their careers, and only 4 out of 10 shot 75% on their careers. There are so many things that can combine to create a good or great NBA scorer, but history illustrates it’s not necessary to be successful in the league.

Of course it’s important, and some charity stripe brick layers on this list could be 1,000’s of points higher over the course of a career if they had been better, but being an average or below average free shooter wouldn’t scare me off. Karl Malone didn’t shoot over 60% on a single season until his 3rd year, and he was one of the best mid-range shooting big men of all time. Hakeem Olajuwon was off to a shaky start after never topping 60% after three years at the univeristy of Houston, but refined athleticism into a skilled overall package.

If I’m looking at a big man, NBA translatable ability and size paired with athleticism is the major factor. Free throw shooting is more like extra icing. Some correlations regarding certain shooting percentages relating to improved mid-range games down the line I feel are farily accurate, but as your title indicates, I don’t think it has a ton to do with overall success if the rest of the package is that of a translatable NBA scorer. 

 

[trelos6Participant]

 Great analysis.  Today’s NBA really does embrace the Hack-a-Shaq strategy.  If a big man is having his way, then his ability to hit free throws can help him to dominate further.  Coaches have shown their willingness to take out players towards teh end of games who can’t hit FT’s.  

Karl Malone has a great career arc.  74% by the end of his career, goes to show how hard he worked on his game.
 

 

 

[trelos6Participant]

 Great analysis.  Today’s NBA really does embrace the Hack-a-Shaq strategy.  If a big man is having his way, then his ability to hit free throws can help him to dominate further.  Coaches have shown their willingness to take out players towards teh end of games who can’t hit FT’s.  

Karl Malone has a great career arc.  74% by the end of his career, goes to show how hard he worked on his game.
 

 

 

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

 If only Ricky Rubio could translate good FT shooting into even decent shooting…

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

 If only Ricky Rubio could translate good FT shooting into even decent shooting…

[arambone2]

 Thanks for the replies guys. The title was a bit misleading, as you might have guessed by my focus on projecting mid-range and 3 point jump shooting in the original post.

So this wasn’t about whether Okafor can be successful in the post based on his college FT%. Or Shaq or Wilt.

And for every Mailman or Dream that developed into a solid FT shooter, there are literally dozens of lottery and first round big men that didn’t, and never developed a mid-range jumper either.

But in today’s NBA, I would definitely go so far as to say that being able to stretch the floor beyond 10-11 feet is pretty much a Must in today’s NBA. Shaq never had to worry about zone defenses and help defense, and complained loudly when the rules were changed late in his career. His career and scoring would have been much much different under today’s rules, so his success despite being terrible outside 8 feet is pretty much a moot point.

There may come a prospect who is so dominant a post scorer that he can dominate the modern NBA without stretching the floor beyond 10 feet, but I do not think Okafor is that guy. It will probably be a Shaq sized guy with McHale level post moves. Healthy Brook Lopez comes closest in today’s NBA, but he can also stretch the floor beyond 10 feet.

I think Drummond is quietly one of the most overrated players in the NBA, and Detroit would be dumb to max him out and "build" around him.

I hadn’t looked up 2 point jump shot % before I wrote this, but it’s very interesting that those %s generally matched what I projected based on FT% and 3 pt %. Everybody seems to think of Winslow as a much better shooting version of RHJ, but RHJ may very well be the better prospect, and a much lower risk outside the top 10 than Winslow in the top 5.

I had heard the reports out of Arizona that RHJ was a knock down mid-range shooter in practice, but I didn’t realize that it had already translated to games, as his FT% suggested it could.

Not only does Winslow’s mid-range jump shot appear non-existent from the stats listed above (1-15 or something), but his solid 3 pt % is likely to plummet in the NBA as well with the deeper distance.

RHJ is looking more and more like an elite prospect all the time. He’s arguably more athletic than Winslow, and has a quicker first step. Just being able to stretch the floor our to 15-17 feet is going to open up his dribble drive, and at SF he’s going to have a real quickness/athleticism advantage.

I’d play Winslow like I’d play Mudiay. Play off them to take away their dribble drive, and make them take jump shots. It’s good to hear that Mudiay shot closer to 70% in high school than the 57% he shot in China. That puts him much closer to the John Wall/Derrick Rose level of FT shooter.

Okafor has a high chance of being a net minus for his team in the NBA. Stretching the floor out to mid-range isn’t just a nice luxury anymore, it’s arguably a necessity. DeAndre Jordan might be the only non-shooting center who somehow manages to be big net positive on the offensive end. I’m not sure how he’s doing it, but he’s way better than Drummond on the offensive end somehow.

Post scoring might seem great or even ideal in theory, but a driving layup or floater by a face up forward or guard is probably a higher %, and in the case of driving layups, much higher % than an Okafor turnaround contested bank shot from 5 feet.

If Okafor doesn’t project to stretch the floor out to 10-15 feet, to open up the lane for his teammates, then I don’t think he’s ever going to be a serious net plus for his team. Maybe a bit better than neutral, but maybe even a net negative, regardless of stats he puts up. Maybe if he was bigger like Brook Lopez, or quicker and more creative like Big Al, a guy who also notoriously doesn’t make his teams much better despite stats.

Overall I don’t view FT shooting as a literal direct correlation to shooting (outside of 10 feet) success, but there does seem to be a floor of about 70% in general. An occassional guy like Malone or Olajuwan might break the mold and develop into great shooters in the NBA, but in general sub-70% college FT shooters tend to not become great or even good jump shooters in the NBA.

Kelly Olynyk shot 80% from FT as a rookie, but was down to 70% this year, a clear anomoly in my mind.

JoeWolf, the 70% base line/floor theory of mine seems to fit most of the top NBA scorers you listed. The ones who became good/great NBA jump shooters tend to usually shoot at least 70% FT in college, or very close to it.

There’s always going to be a Malone or Olajuwan who breaks the trend, but those guys weren’t drafted for their projected jump shooting anyway. And teams would be well advised to not draft bigs high in the draft based on completely transforming and expanding their jump shots. Even if a Karl Malone slips through their hands every ten-twenty years.

The list of lottery big man busts from the past 10-20 years is probably filled with guys who never developed a steady mid-range jumper. And their college FT% probably suggested as much, in the vast majority of cases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[arambone2]

 Thanks for the replies guys. The title was a bit misleading, as you might have guessed by my focus on projecting mid-range and 3 point jump shooting in the original post.

So this wasn’t about whether Okafor can be successful in the post based on his college FT%. Or Shaq or Wilt.

And for every Mailman or Dream that developed into a solid FT shooter, there are literally dozens of lottery and first round big men that didn’t, and never developed a mid-range jumper either.

But in today’s NBA, I would definitely go so far as to say that being able to stretch the floor beyond 10-11 feet is pretty much a Must in today’s NBA. Shaq never had to worry about zone defenses and help defense, and complained loudly when the rules were changed late in his career. His career and scoring would have been much much different under today’s rules, so his success despite being terrible outside 8 feet is pretty much a moot point.

There may come a prospect who is so dominant a post scorer that he can dominate the modern NBA without stretching the floor beyond 10 feet, but I do not think Okafor is that guy. It will probably be a Shaq sized guy with McHale level post moves. Healthy Brook Lopez comes closest in today’s NBA, but he can also stretch the floor beyond 10 feet.

I think Drummond is quietly one of the most overrated players in the NBA, and Detroit would be dumb to max him out and "build" around him.

I hadn’t looked up 2 point jump shot % before I wrote this, but it’s very interesting that those %s generally matched what I projected based on FT% and 3 pt %. Everybody seems to think of Winslow as a much better shooting version of RHJ, but RHJ may very well be the better prospect, and a much lower risk outside the top 10 than Winslow in the top 5.

I had heard the reports out of Arizona that RHJ was a knock down mid-range shooter in practice, but I didn’t realize that it had already translated to games, as his FT% suggested it could.

Not only does Winslow’s mid-range jump shot appear non-existent from the stats listed above (1-15 or something), but his solid 3 pt % is likely to plummet in the NBA as well with the deeper distance.

RHJ is looking more and more like an elite prospect all the time. He’s arguably more athletic than Winslow, and has a quicker first step. Just being able to stretch the floor our to 15-17 feet is going to open up his dribble drive, and at SF he’s going to have a real quickness/athleticism advantage.

I’d play Winslow like I’d play Mudiay. Play off them to take away their dribble drive, and make them take jump shots. It’s good to hear that Mudiay shot closer to 70% in high school than the 57% he shot in China. That puts him much closer to the John Wall/Derrick Rose level of FT shooter.

Okafor has a high chance of being a net minus for his team in the NBA. Stretching the floor out to mid-range isn’t just a nice luxury anymore, it’s arguably a necessity. DeAndre Jordan might be the only non-shooting center who somehow manages to be big net positive on the offensive end. I’m not sure how he’s doing it, but he’s way better than Drummond on the offensive end somehow.

Post scoring might seem great or even ideal in theory, but a driving layup or floater by a face up forward or guard is probably a higher %, and in the case of driving layups, much higher % than an Okafor turnaround contested bank shot from 5 feet.

If Okafor doesn’t project to stretch the floor out to 10-15 feet, to open up the lane for his teammates, then I don’t think he’s ever going to be a serious net plus for his team. Maybe a bit better than neutral, but maybe even a net negative, regardless of stats he puts up. Maybe if he was bigger like Brook Lopez, or quicker and more creative like Big Al, a guy who also notoriously doesn’t make his teams much better despite stats.

Overall I don’t view FT shooting as a literal direct correlation to shooting (outside of 10 feet) success, but there does seem to be a floor of about 70% in general. An occassional guy like Malone or Olajuwan might break the mold and develop into great shooters in the NBA, but in general sub-70% college FT shooters tend to not become great or even good jump shooters in the NBA.

Kelly Olynyk shot 80% from FT as a rookie, but was down to 70% this year, a clear anomoly in my mind.

JoeWolf, the 70% base line/floor theory of mine seems to fit most of the top NBA scorers you listed. The ones who became good/great NBA jump shooters tend to usually shoot at least 70% FT in college, or very close to it.

There’s always going to be a Malone or Olajuwan who breaks the trend, but those guys weren’t drafted for their projected jump shooting anyway. And teams would be well advised to not draft bigs high in the draft based on completely transforming and expanding their jump shots. Even if a Karl Malone slips through their hands every ten-twenty years.

The list of lottery big man busts from the past 10-20 years is probably filled with guys who never developed a steady mid-range jumper. And their college FT% probably suggested as much, in the vast majority of cases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[arambone2]

 Speaking of hack a Shaq. Okafor is a prime candidate to be sitting on the bench in the fourth quarter due to his defense and FT liability. Why in the world would a team draft this guy second overall in a good draft? The Buss brats in LA are the perfect candidates to eagerly draft him that high though. Which is why Kobe is making 25 million again this year.

 

 

 

 

[arambone2]

 Speaking of hack a Shaq. Okafor is a prime candidate to be sitting on the bench in the fourth quarter due to his defense and FT liability. Why in the world would a team draft this guy second overall in a good draft? The Buss brats in LA are the perfect candidates to eagerly draft him that high though. Which is why Kobe is making 25 million again this year.

 

 

 

 

[Tap892Participant]

 Blake griffin is an example of a guy who shot under 60% in college, but has improved significantly the last couple years

[Tap892Participant]

 Blake griffin is an example of a guy who shot under 60% in college, but has improved significantly the last couple years

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

 I think Okafor will improve his FT shooting. He has solid touch and his shot is nowhere near as broke looking mechanically as Jordan/Drummond/Rondo/Howard. He has decent form and good touch. He may not be a 80% guy but if he’s a mid 60s FT shooter, nobody will hack-a him. 

His defense may be another story because I don’t know if he’ll ever be mobile enough to defend the parade of pick n rolls teams will bring his way. 

 

[BiggysmallsParticipant]

 I think Okafor will improve his FT shooting. He has solid touch and his shot is nowhere near as broke looking mechanically as Jordan/Drummond/Rondo/Howard. He has decent form and good touch. He may not be a 80% guy but if he’s a mid 60s FT shooter, nobody will hack-a him. 

His defense may be another story because I don’t know if he’ll ever be mobile enough to defend the parade of pick n rolls teams will bring his way. 

 

[Author]

Posts