This is a bad take that I wanted to address for a few reasons
* If you shoot 10 for 20, you will get 20pts on 20 shots, but that's 50% FG shooting, which is the optimal % to aim for. Is anyone seriously arguing against 50% shooting?
* In the same scenario above, if you reach the FT line, you could get about 25-30pts, which is what we want to see from Herro, but that's totally dependent on the officiating, which has been very biased against the Heat and Herro
The other thing I want to show is just how much getting a foul called can increase efficiency.
I went and looked up James Harden, a guy who lives off of foul calls, to show you just how bad he is if he were to get Tyler Herro FTAs (3.1). I also included 4 FTA games as to get a bigger sample size.

It's easy to see just how much foul calls have an impact on Harden's game and efficiency.
You could also compare these numbers to Herro's numbers if you want, aside from turnovers because Harden's usage is higher and he's the primary playmaker (or just divide by 2 to make it fair). If you do make this comparison, it's easy to see that Harden is a worse offensive player and far more inefficient than Herro when the FTAs are similar.
I hope you guys understand just how much getting a foul call and reaching the FT line can change the perception of just how efficient a player is.
If it needs explaining, when you get a foul call:
a) Turnovers and missed shots aren't recorded, eliminating inefficiencies
b) Made shots are recorded, which increases efficiency
c) If a shooting foul is called, it results in FTs, which are free points and improved efficiency
Herro skeptics need to appreciate just how good Herro is without having fouls called for him and imagine how much better he'll be if the refs ever do call a foul for him.
Laterz.