My point is that it is a different discussion from whether a player is a consistent shooter, which is what was being challenged.
I'm not. It's right there at Basketball Reference. I'm saying you have to spoonfeed him. In 2021 almost every NBAer is expected to hit the wide-open 3. We have a half-dozen guys who can do that, and who add other things too.
I'm not sure I really understand what you mean here. How do we measure how consistent a shooter a player is? The rate of shot attempts, percentage, and how much you fluctuate and we compare to players in a similar role. Kennard checks all those boxes for a player in his role.
Almost every NBA player is expected to hit the wide open 3, certainly, and here's what the average team does:
Wide-Open 3PT: ~39% | Kennard 46.5% (+6.5%)
Open 3PT: ~35% | Kennard 49.2% (+13%)
Tight 3PT - ~31% | Kennard 40.0% (+9%)
Kennard barely shoots tight 3PT shots, the average team only takes 3-4 tight 3PT shots, obviously, since it isn't what teams want. The only guy that really takes a decent amount of tight 3PT attempts on the team is Paul George who hits at almost 38%. Kennard though actually shoots better on open 3PT shots than wide open ones, he's not in the NBA because he can only hit if no one is around him or closing out.
I'm still not understanding what is going on here, you're debating whether or not Kennard is better than other guys who can do other things, when what was being rebutted was the assertion that he is not a consistent shooter. So is he a consistent shooter or not? If you don't believe he is, sure, though I'd be interested to see the support for that.
If you do believe he is, what are you disagreeing with in relation to the specific line of discussion? If you are debating whether his level of 3PT consistency is good enough to get him more minutes on this team over other guys who do more and can also shoot, fine, but that's not what was being responded to, so I don't really get it.