Would Hakeem and Ewing develop a 3pt game today?

[henshao]

This discussion gets really interesting if you consider Tim Duncan, a shall we say inconsistent free-throw shooter

[Masigond]

If Ewing and Olajuwon want to even be in TODAY's NBA, then they better develop three-point shots.

Ewing maybe, but Hakeem had all the tools to be a great offensive player in any era with his mobility and all that moves and counter-moves.

[Owly]

Both known as quite good offensive players from mid range, do you think they would've been reliable 3pt shooters in today's game, in a similar manner to the likes of Embiid and Jokic?

Which other all time great centers would develop a reliable 3pt game?

Embiid, Jokic are both career ft% north of 80 (Jokic 83%, never south of .80) quite far I would think (given my assumption on ft% distribution) above where Ewing (.74; peaking .775) Olajuwon (.712, better in early-to-mid 90s, peaking .787) resided.

As ever people can play time machine stuff how they want with different assumptions, so I won't go to any absolutes. But as a solid proxy for purity of stroke in consistent conditions I'd say as it was they were decidedly worse pure shooters than the modern comps (maybe one assumes their skills translate to getting better looks from 3, shot form adapts better to deep, better shot selection or some other variable).

Kinda depends on assisted percentage, representation of corner threes and such. Dream and Ewing were both high 40s to around 50% in the 16-23 range in the late 90s, right, so food for thought.

Reference has Olajuwon .412. Ewing .413 (for 16ft to 3pt). My impression (not an expert in these numbers) is these are good but not outstanding. Some caution in such comps because how people get these shots and their average range will differ. That being said, those career numbers are below for instance
Laettner .470
Smits 0.467,
Garnett 0.454
Bass 0.453
Gugliotta .450
PJ Brown 0.448
Kurt Thomas 0.441
Oakley 0.432
Aldridge 0.428
Joe Smith 0.427
among some quality shooting bigs who are ... unproven ... from three. Most are circa 80% free throw shooters. The worst are Gugliotta .757, Kurt Thomas are .760, Oakley .761. The two are also similar to David Robinson .415 (.736 from the stripe). Then too I think they're taking a few shots out there but not a huge chunk and their average shooting distance is always single digits. Again good, I think (I don't have a great gauge) not something that precludes 3pt range but nothing that guarantees it either.


Sidenote: In '97 the first year long midrange percentages are, I think, possibly inflated, because the top end of the range is shorter due to the shortened three. I think this is why Kerr .675, Barros .674, Bogues .672, Hubert Davis .623 and Dell Curry .615 show north of .600 which I would guess isn't normal.

[scrabbarista]

I'm closer to your thinking. A few things we know:

1. Players practice shooting a lot more now.
2. Shooting coaching has improved.
3. Spacing has improved generating more open looks.

It is hard to say which players would make the leap but my operating assumption is a player between 70-80 from the line with a decent midrange game has a good chance of developing a 3 point shot. A player between 80-85 and good mid range game more likely than not will have a good 3 point game. Anything north of that I assume it is overwhelmingly likely they become good 3 point shooters

I put Ewing/Olajuwon in the camp that they have a good chance of developing a 3 point shot but not certain.

This is pretty much exactly my thinking. I might throw in a slight bias in favor of Hakeem's chances given:

A) I watched him so much and therefore have a feel for his shooting mechanics, biomechanics, etc., and
B) superstar-tier players are far more likely to explore all potential aspects of their game within the context of their time

With Olajuwon, he was a player who improved a lot offensively in his career. He came in pretty raw which makes sense given how old he was when he picked up the game. I believe 15(?) when he started playing. During his peak offensive years he was a 75% shooter who did a lot of damage from mid-range not so much long range.

I'd say the middle range of possible 3 point shooting for Hakeem is between Dray currently and Horford. Anything outside that range I think is unlikely

For ewing I'm less confident about full 3s but I do think he become credible from the corner.

I have zero doubt Hakeem would be a better three-point shooter than Draymond. That's a brutal comparison. Draymond is at .315 for his career, but consider how many of those are WIDE open catch-and-shoots. To put it bluntly, Dray sucks as a shooter. And, again, Olajuwon did a lot of his damage (in the 90's) from midrange. Even his most famous shot, the baseline dream shake, was usually from fifteen to eighteen feet away by the time he released it. That was his bread and butter. Dray is basically a crapshoot from almost any range.

Horford at .360 for his career would probably be the high end, agreed there. But this is inevitably all just speculation. Who knows - if Dream had had more experience with the game at a younger age (and was born thirty years later), it's possible (not likely, agreed) he would surpass even that mark.

[scrabbarista]

Embiid, Jokic are both career ft% north of 80 (Jokic 83%, never south of .80) quite far I would think (given my assumption on ft% distribution) above where Ewing (.74; peaking .775) Olajuwon (.712, better in early-to-mid 90s, peaking .787) resided.

As ever people can play time machine stuff how they want with different assumptions, so I won't go to any absolutes. But as a solid proxy for purity of stroke in consistent conditions I'd say as it was they were decidedly worse pure shooters than the modern comps (maybe one assumes their skills translate to getting better looks from 3, shot form adapts better to deep, better shot selection or some other variable).

Kinda depends on assisted percentage, representation of corner threes and such. Dream and Ewing were both high 40s to around 50% in the 16-23 range in the late 90s, right, so food for thought.

Reference has Olajuwon .412. Ewing .413 (for 16ft to 3pt). My impression (not an expert in these numbers) is these are good but not outstanding. Some caution in such comps because how people get these shots and their average range will differ. That being said, those career numbers are below for instance
Laettner .470
Smits 0.467,
Garnett 0.454
Bass 0.453
Gugliotta .450
PJ Brown 0.448
Kurt Thomas 0.441
Oakley 0.432
Aldridge 0.428
Joe Smith 0.427
among some quality shooting bigs who are ... unproven ... from three. Most are circa 80% free throw shooters. The worst are Gugliotta .757, Kurt Thomas are .760, Oakley .761. The two are also similar to David Robinson .415 (.736 from the stripe). Then too I think they're taking a few shots out there but not a huge chunk and their average shooting distance is always single digits. Again good, I think (I don't have a great gauge) not something that precludes 3pt range but nothing that guarantees it either.


Sidenote: In '97 the first year long midrange percentages are, I think, possibly inflated, because the top end of the range is shorter due to the shortened three. I think this is why Kerr .675, Barros .674, Bogues .672, Hubert Davis .623 and Dell Curry .615 show north of .600 which I would guess isn't normal.

Speaking of partial sample sizes, 50% of the seasons you're using are the ones in which Hakeem turned 38, 39, and 40 years old. Hardly fair or representative. Even in the three years he turned 35, 36, and 37 (pretty old in the 90's) he was at .455 from that range, as opposed to the .412 cited: higher than all but two players on that list.

[Owly]

Kinda depends on assisted percentage, representation of corner threes and such. Dream and Ewing were both high 40s to around 50% in the 16-23 range in the late 90s, right, so food for thought.

Reference has Olajuwon .412. Ewing .413 (for 16ft to 3pt). My impression (not an expert in these numbers) is these are good but not outstanding. Some caution in such comps because how people get these shots and their average range will differ. That being said, those career numbers are below for instance
Laettner .470
Smits 0.467,
Garnett 0.454
Bass 0.453
Gugliotta .450
PJ Brown 0.448
Kurt Thomas 0.441
Oakley 0.432
Aldridge 0.428
Joe Smith 0.427
among some quality shooting bigs who are ... unproven ... from three. Most are circa 80% free throw shooters. The worst are Gugliotta .757, Kurt Thomas are .760, Oakley .761. The two are also similar to David Robinson .415 (.736 from the stripe). Then too I think they're taking a few shots out there but not a huge chunk and their average shooting distance is always single digits. Again good, I think (I don't have a great gauge) not something that precludes 3pt range but nothing that guarantees it either.


Sidenote: In '97 the first year long midrange percentages are, I think, possibly inflated, because the top end of the range is shorter due to the shortened three. I think this is why Kerr .675, Barros .674, Bogues .672, Hubert Davis .623 and Dell Curry .615 show north of .600 which I would guess isn't normal.

Speaking of partial sample sizes, 50% of the seasons you're using are the ones in which Hakeem turned 38, 39, and 40 years old. Hardly fair or representative. Even in the three years he turned 35, 36, and 37 (pretty old in the 90's) he was at .455 from that range, as opposed to the .412 cited: higher than all but two players on that list.

You get that
1) Those are the years available
and
2) I'm responding to someone explicitly talking about "Dream and Ewing ... in the late 90s" so yes I'm using the late career data.

I don't know if you want me to magic up younger data or chop off later years and use an even smaller sample versus other players careers again like you have and pretend that that's a fair playing field. I would grant a more limited point that they were better in those late 90s years so if I looked exclusively at those whilst it would still be incorrect to say "high 40s to around 50 percent" I could cite better looking numbers (.431 Ewing, .455 Olajuwon) but that's a small sample now with a very substantial chunk in the '97 year and your apples to oranges comparison (where apples to apples could be done in many of these cases) is unfair. Then too I can't help worrying you may be intentionally distorting or misdirecting away from the relevant numbers, yes 50% of the seasons ... but he plays less than 50% of his minutes there and in those fewer minutes his usage is also down. I would also note that unlike "athletic/activity" categories like steals or blocks distance shooting isn't something that's particularly associated with atrophying with age. So now your claim for him being able to shoot 3s is apart from his younger years and his older years (still a reasonable chunk, granted)?

Regardless, you seem intent on dying on the Hakeem must be regarded as being a good time travel 3pt shooter hill and I'm done with this.

[scrabbarista]

I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

These things are correlated significantly - I believe to the extent ft% is used significantly in profiling projecting longer distance shooting in prospects. Are you in disagreement here?

I give caveats with regards to some players have form which works better from range, creation ability etc.

I'm not sure what one ... semi-exception (for a selected window rather than full career, and a pretty exceptional perimeter driver which should be giving him better looks) is supposed to do here.

I wouldn't claim to anything like certainty as to what people would be like if we time travel them because I don't know what that entails (nor what others imagine it entails). I am happy to reiterate what was implicit above, Olajuwon's best FT% season is worse than Jokic's worst.

For reference some players in those career ranges.

.820-.840 shooters 1000 attempts (list from circa 3 years ago)


.702-.722 ft% shooters (same requirements)


I believe Olajuwon was better from long midrange from the field than his FT% would indicate (though I think he was stronger in the shorter midrange).

I don't know what Olajuwon would be (not least for the uncertainty of time machine stuff) nor how he would optimally focus today. I do though see little reason to show near certainty that Olajuwon would be in Jokic's ballpark as a shooter.

Taking entire career FT%'s can be even more misrepresentative of a player's shooting potential than taking a six-year sample, as it doesn't account for skill development - both before and after entering the league. (And, if you like, I'll tack on two extra years: LeBron is .707 from the line over the last eight seasons and .354 from three on five and a half attempts per game.)

Hakeem, for example, came into the league very raw. Over his last 13 seasons, he shot .734 from from the free throw line. That's a 13 SEASON sample size that lifts him out of long list of shooters you put him in. In fact, it puts him basically on par with LeBron's last 13 seasons (.737). Is that too small of a sample for you? 4,762 attempts for Hakeem, and 7,291 for LeBron?

I'm not sure why years in which a player didn't develop a skill should be left out?

I guess you are now arguing that you are near certain that Olajuwon would become a 3 point shooter ... in his later career. This though is not something stated initially and indeed his latter development was something that I explicitly noted in my post. Even in this new line of argument my broad points would still stand, Olajuwon would remain substantially behind Jokic on average and worse in his best year than Jokic in his worst.

I'm not sure why this is split over two posts but

Again not sure what you are looking for.

I'm trying to keep this constructive.

Read the post and it states, among other things (that you appear to have disregarded) that the lists purpose is to give some context on the caliber of shooter in each's FT% vicinity.
But if you want a blunter version.

Above plus 3pt% above .35 (min 50 makes)
list 1
Vinny Del Negro
CJ McCollum
Eric Piatkowski
Michael Redd
Aaron Brooks
Karl-Anthony Towns
Terry Porter
Nick Young
Kemba Walker
Cuttino Mobley
Keith Van Horn
Damon Stoudamire
Byron Scott
Kenny Smith
Howard Eisley
Kevin Love
Manu Ginobili
John Stockton
Wesley Matthews
Dee Brown
Jim Jackson
Arron Afflalo
Zach LaVine
Andrea Bargnani
Brent Barry
Channing Frye
Deron Williams
Tobias Harris
Gordon Hayward
Leandro Barbosa
Doug Christie
O.J. Mayo

list 2
Quentin Richardson
Raef LaFrentz
Jason Richardson

You'll notice which list shrunk more.

The problem with your lists is that they are irrelevant to this particular thread, as Hakeem doesn't belong in the lower one.

As in my comment above, there's a nearly 5,000 free-throw sample size over his last 13 seasons to prove it. For a bit of context, that's more seasons - and surely far more attempts - than many/most of the guys in those lists probably had in their entire careers.

Okay, so that's your problem with one list (Olajuwon's).

Even chopping Hakeem to selectively select his best years and not doing that for all other players, a decidedly generous (to Hakeem, I would suggest unfair to all others) and using .736 baseline plus or minus 0.010

he retains

Derek Harper
Shane Battier
Walt Williams
DeMarre Carroll
Dan Majerle
Bobby Phills
J.R. Smith
Jared Dudley
Chris Ford
Rafer Alston
Trevor Ariza
Al Harrington

from

M.L. Carr
Derek Harper
Tom Meschery
Gerald Wilkins
Matt Barnes
Slick Leonard
Mike Riordan
Andrew Lang
Travis Outlaw
Shane Battier
Alvin Robertson
Chuck Cooper
Clarence Weatherspoon
Joe Bryant
Walt Williams
Chris Kaman
Malik Rose
DeMarre Carroll
Karl Malone
Giannis Antetokounmpo
Noble Jorgensen
Shawn Kemp
Happy Hairston
Dan Majerle
Larry Foust
Mark Aguirre
Roy Hinson
Nikola Vucevic
Lionel Hollins
Luis Scola
Frank Brickowski
Desmond Mason
Vinnie Johnson
Dwight Jones
Aaron Williams
Patrick Ewing
Cody Zeller
Todd Day
Don Adams
Tom Henderson
Marques Johnson
Chris Morris
Shandon Anderson
Bobby Phills
Dan Roundfield
Tyler Hansbrough
Othella Harrington
Sidney Green
Buck Johnson
Sam Lacey
Lonnie Shelton
LaSalle Thompson
Kevin Porter
Pat Cummings
Bill Gabor
DeMarcus Cousins
Orlando Woolridge
Wayne Cooper
Mookie Blaylock
Kevin Duckworth
LeBron James
David Robinson
Phil Jackson
Elton Brand
Eric Williams
Andrew Wiggins
Charles Barkley
Paul Millsap
A.C. Green
George Lee
Alvin Scott
Greg Anthony
Vernon Maxwell
Don Ohl
Robert Reid
Tyrus Thomas
J.R. Smith
James Donaldson
Dave Stallworth
Jared Dudley
Donyell Marshall
Ed Fleming
Chris Ford
Arnie Johnson
LaPhonso Ellis
Nenad Krstic
Gene Banks
Bernard King
Rafer Alston
Toni Kukoc
Danny Manning
Gary Payton
Leroy Ellis
Matt Geiger
Trevor Ariza
Frank Selvy
Zaid Abdul-Aziz
Stacey Augmon
Al Harrington
Joe Ellis
Antonio Davis
Robert Horry
Hakim Warrick

The Jokic FT% vicinity converts 32 members of the 85 on the original list to the 3pt list (0.376470588).
The new (developed shooting prime) Olajuwon (versus other players full careers) vicinity list converts 12 from a list of 103 (0.116504854).

Even stacking the deck in Olajuwon's favor ... it's far more an exception for someone in that vicinity as a pure shooter to be a good 3pt shooter.

I gave you a consecutive 13-year sample size. The reason the early years should be left out is because the OP asked if Hakeem would develop a three-point game, not when he would develop it. It was not a "new line of argument." It was salient to the thread, in which the entire premise is to create an alternative reality where Hakeem's skills take (or don't) a different development route. Thus, it is relevant to show that he had the ability to develop his shooting skills.

I also question your methodology in including players with a mere 50 3PA's, as if that's representative ; and I find it pretty rich for someone protesting my using a 4,762 FTA sample (again, in consecutive seasons).

I did not state that Hakeem would be Jokic's equal as a three-point shooter, or even that I was "nearly certain" he would be Jokic's equal, but merely that he would nearly certainly be "in the ball park" with Jokic and Embiid. If you'll at least do me the decency of passing on the semantic question of "and" vs. "or" ("Jokic and Embiid"), and let me keep my comments about Hakeem, as the OP intended (not about Jokic), then consider that Jokic and Embiid's combined 3P%, regular season and playoffs, is .343. I retain my assertion that I'm nearly certain Olajuwon would be "in the ball park" of this. You might've been better served asking how many players at .736 FT% have shot .330 rather than .350 if you wanted to address my original assertion with more accuracy. I would be interested in those numbers. However, I wouldn't take them as definitive with regard to Hakeem. As someone who watched him regularly through the 90's (being a Houston native) and was a great shooter myself [the only statistical evidence is that I hit 26 out of 34 threes during my only year of high school basketball], I would continue to assert my near-certainty that Hakeem would indeed be in the ball park with those two from long-range if he'd come up in the same era.

[giberish]

If Ewing and Olajuwon want to even be in TODAY's NBA, then they better develop three-point shots.

Ewing maybe, but Hakeem had all the tools to be a great offensive player in any era with his mobility and all that moves and counter-moves.

How much does Embiid's 3-point shooting really matter? Even if he was a decent 3-point threat, opposing defenses would love for Hakeem to be drifting around the 3-point line on offense. He's the guy you want attacking the basket. Then when he draws help the other guys take advantage with open 3's. That's how his offense would work in this era.

[Masigond]

If Ewing and Olajuwon want to even be in TODAY's NBA, then they better develop three-point shots.

Ewing maybe, but Hakeem had all the tools to be a great offensive player in any era with his mobility and all that moves and counter-moves.

How much does Embiid's 3-point shooting really matter? Even if he was a decent 3-point threat, opposing defenses would love for Hakeem to be drifting around the 3-point line on offense. He's the guy you want attacking the basket. Then when he draws help the other guys take advantage with open 3's. That's how his offense would work in this era.

That's what I meant. Being able to hit a 3 is always great, but Hakeem Olajuwon had enough tools even without it to wreak havoc in every opponent's defense, and I think it would work well in today's league. All you can hope for is that he has a bad shooting day, but you certainly can't prevent him from taking a shot. With his gravity he creates enough space for his teammates. They are the ones who need to exploit that by converting the 3s. Actually the Rockets' championships were not that much different. They didn't have the 3P volume of today's teams by any means but for that era Maxwell, Horry, Cassell and Smith were taking quite a lot of long-range shots. Just because they were open a lot of times.

[tsherkin]

Reference has Olajuwon .412. Ewing .413 (for 16ft to 3pt).

That includes 2000 and later.

97-99, he was at 45.5%, topping out at 50.4% (17.0% of FGA). Something to consider.

[falcolombardi]

Yes, definetely

[giberish]

Ewing maybe, but Hakeem had all the tools to be a great offensive player in any era with his mobility and all that moves and counter-moves.

How much does Embiid's 3-point shooting really matter? Even if he was a decent 3-point threat, opposing defenses would love for Hakeem to be drifting around the 3-point line on offense. He's the guy you want attacking the basket. Then when he draws help the other guys take advantage with open 3's. That's how his offense would work in this era.

That's what I meant. Being able to hit a 3 is always great, but Hakeem Olajuwon had enough tools even without it to wreak havoc in every opponent's defense, and I think it would work well in today's league. All you can hope for is that he has a bad shooting day, but you certainly can't prevent him from taking a shot. With his gravity he creates enough space for his teammates. They are the ones who need to exploit that by converting the 3s. Actually the Rockets' championships were not that much different. They didn't have the 3P volume of today's teams by any means but for that era Maxwell, Horry, Cassell and Smith were taking quite a lot of long-range shots. Just because they were open a lot of times.

Yeah, I'm too lazy to do real research on this, but during Shaq's time with the Lakers, they made a lot more 3's when he was on the court then when he was off. That obviously wasn't due to Shaq's great shooting range but rather guys getting open 3's due to defenses collapsing on Shaq. It's pretty trivial to see Hakeem (and to a somewhat lessor degree Ewing) having the same effect for the same reasons. Even now with Embiid - sure he takes some 3's but is that what defenses are really worried about? Embiid taking a 3 always feels like a win for the defense (at least somewhat).

The only real change in their game necessary would be on defense. They'd play far, far less low-post defense on opposing centers and have to defend more in space and away from the rim. That would be a huge problem for some second-tier centers of the era but the top guys were plenty quick/athletic to hold up and likely even excel there.

[JordansBulls]

They shot a lot of jumpers as well in there own era. Wasn’t like they were in the post 95% of the time