RealGM

Bruce Bowen shot just a hair under 70% in college, but was awful in the NBA with a career FT% of 58% and a career three point percentage of 39%.

Nobody mentioned Avery Bradley? I didn't realize it until today.

54.5% FT at Texas

39% on 5 attempts a game last year for Boston

We don't really need to list every guy. Suffice it to say that it's fairly unlikely that a guy shooting as badly from the line as Josh Jackson did will shoot well from the 3 in the NBA, but it is not impossible. Just not something to bet on.

Suns didn't draft him to be a shooter, they already have that in Booker. They drafted him to be a Shawn Marion type player.

KqWIN wrote:Nobody mentioned Avery Bradley? I didn't realize it until today.

54.5% FT at Texas

39% on 5 attempts a game last year for Boston

He only shot 66 FTA in his freshman season. Jackson shot 3X that amount.

Bradley shot 80% on free throws his second season with Boston on 78 attempts (only took 12 his rookie season). Furthermore, Bradley shot 37.5% on 112 3PA his freshman season.

The 54.5% would have been a minor red flag to me.

So scrolling through this thread there does seem to be a solid list of exceptions, Bradley/Scottie/Eddie Jones/Paul Pierce/DeMarre Carroll/Kent Bazemore/DeMarcus Cousins. Which I agree leads to the logical conclusion that it is possible but generally unlikely that someone can shoot horribly from FT% in college and well from 3 in the NBA. What amazes me is that people constantly talk about how College FT% is a better indicator broadly of shooting ability than 3pt% but they hardly ever dig into why. Here's why:

3pt% in college is an unreliable stastical projection because it is often on an insanely small sample size (like T.J. Leaf shot some insane 47% but it was on a total of like 60 attempts, if he bricked 5 3s suddenly it's a much more earthly number.) The shortened line and the different makeup of college ball vs. NBA makes a direct translation very fraught. So FT%, which generally has as high as 2 or 3 times the sample size and is thought of as a more "true shot, shooting stroke," is considered a much more reliable measure. Makes sense. But for some reason this seems to mean people are incapable of thinking beyond this general rule of thumb and applying it to particular cases. For instance:

Josh Jackson is, for lack of a better term, a "motion player." Everything happens in a flow for him, within the tempo of the game. When he gets a dish and is already squared up and has a guy closing out and without hesitation moves into his form and launches it up, it might not look super pretty, but the results are great. It's in motion. When he gets the ball after a total break-down but he isn't squared up and he has to move into his form and lineup and has plenty of time but there's no flow around him or within his movements, he'll usually brick it even if he's wide-open. I don't know if this makes as much sense in writing as in my head but my point is when you take a guy like Josh out of the flow of the game and stand him in front of a line and hand him the ball and say put it in the hoop from 18 ft. that's not where he's at his best. He's much better running around a screen with a guy chasing him and pulling up while still running and knocking in some ugly brick from 15. It doesn't really make logical sense but that's how his game works, if he's in motion and everything's moving aroquiund him and he can zone in he can be great, when everything stops and the momentum is broken and he has to think through and not just run on instincts, he flounders. So there is a much greater chance that he is an exception to the rule than most players because of how he plays the game.

Conversely, with a guy like DeArron Fox I constantly hear people say "yeah he was awful from 3 but his FT% is good and his form is solid, he just needs time." But this is a fundamentally flawed analysis of Fox's shooting problems. Fox has good form and mechanics, that's never been his issue, and when you give him all the time in the world to square up from 18 ft. he will knock it down at a good rate, absolutely. But he needs time because he does have a 2-motion release, something you don't really want from with a guard, and he needs time to ramp up that release because it takes all his strength to get off long jumpers. Fox is very weak, not just thin weight wise, a very overrated measure, but he has very thin legs which is a big part of shooting jumpers. You put that guy 23 feet out with half a second to get off a 3 before a close-out gets to him, he has no chance. He's not strong enough to quick-release from that distance, he doesn't have the leg strength to get good lift and project it from 24, 25 ft if left wide open there. You NEVER saw him shoot from there in college, ever. His few threes he actually did make came from right at the line and those will just be long 2s in the NBA.

The FT thing is a fine guide line but it is very contextually limited. In JJ's case I would mostly throw it out. He has made shots at every level, every form of competition he's found ways to score. Can he in the nba? Idk. I'm much more concerned about the very flawed form and release on his shot than his FT% personally but it's hard not to believe a guy who's always figured it out won't do so again. I think it'll take a few years, at least, but I think he's more likely to become respectable (35% on 2-3 attempts) than not in time. Fox otoh would have to add a massive amount of strength, calf strength, thigh strength, core strength, which is not at all easy to do, then he has to get used to and confident shooting from further distances than he ever has in a competitive setting. It's possible but far less likely imo. Despite the fact that he was a far better FT% shooter.

KqWIN wrote:Nobody mentioned Avery Bradley? I didn't realize it until today.

54.5% FT at Texas

39% on 5 attempts a game last year for Boston

I did.

LloydFree wrote:Terrible College Ft to decent NBA 3pt

Scottie Pippen
Eddie Jones
Paul Pierce

Was Pierce horrible? His freshman season he shot 61% from the line but he did get better as the season went on and his next two seasons.

Patsfan1081 wrote:

LloydFree wrote:Terrible College Ft to decent NBA 3pt

Scottie Pippen
Eddie Jones
Paul Pierce

Was Pierce horrible? His freshman season he shot 61% from the line but he did get better as the season went on and his next two seasons.

Well I believe the point of the OP was that Josh Jackson would never be a decent 3 point shooter based on his Freshman FT%.

LloydFree wrote:

Patsfan1081 wrote:

LloydFree wrote:Terrible College Ft to decent NBA 3pt

Scottie Pippen
Eddie Jones
Paul Pierce

Was Pierce horrible? His freshman season he shot 61% from the line but he did get better as the season went on and his next two seasons.

Well I believe the point of the OP was that Josh Jackson would never be a decent 3 point shooter based on his Freshman FT%.

Which was only a few %, basically within a margain of error, lower so thats def a fair comp.

Duke4life831 wrote:Bruce Bowen is like the poster child of bad FT shooter good 3pt shooter

During the 2003 playoffs, Bowen had a better 3P% for the season than FT%.

I wanted to see him shoot FTs from the top of the key against the Mavericks.

What about someone who sucked at FTs in college (with a decent enough sample size) but became good in the NBA?

nuraman00 wrote:What about someone who sucked at FTs in college (with a decent enough sample size) but became good in the NBA?

I know its not a horrible % but Ray Allen shot 72% from the line as a Sophomore in college.

Duke4life831 wrote:

nuraman00 wrote:What about someone who sucked at FTs in college (with a decent enough sample size) but became good in the NBA?

I know its not a horrible % but Ray Allen shot 72% from the line as a Sophomore in college.

Good find.

That is actually horrible, considering what he'd do in the NBA. He's the 7th best FT shooter in NBA history.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ft_pct_career.html

If you would have told me he shot below 76% in college, I would have hard a hard time believing it.

You can't track who will or won't improve their free throw shot. It's the most inexact shot to quantify in the game.

I have a picture-perfect jump shot with a high-arc, but for some reason i have always been terrible at free throws. At practice, in games, in pick up games, I just can make free throws for my life. To this day I don't know why I can't make them, but I can shoot three pointers and normal mid-range shots. I can even shoot the ball without jumping from everywhere but that free throw line.

My case is my case, but for each individual it's something different. It could be a mental thing for me and it could be a mental thing for a lot of people. It could just be shot form, not shooting while jumping, breathing, not following through correctly, over-thinking it, fatigue, anything really. Sometimes guys just have more bad games than others.

I just don't think it's possible to predict if someone will become better at free throws. If you're drafting someone, I think you just look at what they're able to do and if they're getting to line and don't have a terrible percentage they could always improve.

I DO tend to think elite shooters just find a way to figure it out. Maybe they know stuff other guys don't or they have better self-awareness in terms of shooting/have more control. That's why Kawhi got so much better, he just has control like a robot. Guys that look like robots shooting end up being the better shooters and they're usually the better free throw shooters.

damecurry wrote:So scrolling through this thread there does seem to be a solid list of exceptions, Bradley/Scottie/Eddie Jones/Paul Pierce/DeMarre Carroll/Kent Bazemore/DeMarcus Cousins. Which I agree leads to the logical conclusion that it is possible but generally unlikely that someone can shoot horribly from FT% in college and well from 3 in the NBA. What amazes me is that people constantly talk about how College FT% is a better indicator broadly of shooting ability than 3pt% but they hardly ever dig into why. Here's why:

3pt% in college is an unreliable stastical projection because it is often on an insanely small sample size (like T.J. Leaf shot some insane 47% but it was on a total of like 60 attempts, if he bricked 5 3s suddenly it's a much more earthly number.) The shortened line and the different makeup of college ball vs. NBA makes a direct translation very fraught. So FT%, which generally has as high as 2 or 3 times the sample size and is thought of as a more "true shot, shooting stroke," is considered a much more reliable measure. Makes sense. But for some reason this seems to mean people are incapable of thinking beyond this general rule of thumb and applying it to particular cases. For instance:

Josh Jackson is, for lack of a better term, a "motion player." Everything happens in a flow for him, within the tempo of the game. When he gets a dish and is already squared up and has a guy closing out and without hesitation moves into his form and launches it up, it might not look super pretty, but the results are great. It's in motion. When he gets the ball after a total break-down but he isn't squared up and he has to move into his form and lineup and has plenty of time but there's no flow around him or within his movements, he'll usually brick it even if he's wide-open. I don't know if this makes as much sense in writing as in my head but my point is when you take a guy like Josh out of the flow of the game and stand him in front of a line and hand him the ball and say put it in the hoop from 18 ft. that's not where he's at his best. He's much better running around a screen with a guy chasing him and pulling up while still running and knocking in some ugly brick from 15. It doesn't really make logical sense but that's how his game works, if he's in motion and everything's moving aroquiund him and he can zone in he can be great, when everything stops and the momentum is broken and he has to think through and not just run on instincts, he flounders. So there is a much greater chance that he is an exception to the rule than most players because of how he plays the game.

I get what you mean. JR Smith is like that too i would say