Shooting Development and the NBA Draft
Shooting's the most important skill; why doesn't the NBA draft like it is?
Fake Fundamentals, Volume 5!! SABA: The Antifragile Offense in paperback and audiobook!! So much to read! Get better this summer!
Prior to the 2020 NBA Draft, I tweeted:
It’s funny how many players “could be the best player in the draft if their shot develops” according to the experts.
It’s only the skill on which the game is based.
People believe NBA players regularly improve their shooting. I have nothing to refute or support the idea, but an article by Donald Kolakowski for Opta Analyst looked at 46 players in the top 50 in three-point field goals made in the 2023-24 NBA season who played college basketball, and found only four shot under 37% on three-point attempts and 77% on free throws in college. The best volume shooters in the NBA, as measured by made three-point field goals in ’23-24, entered the NBA as good shooters.
Many point to Kawhi Leonard as powerful anecdotes of shooting development, but I imagine many others show little improvement. Associate professor of football and researcher Mark O’Sullivan said, “Talent is the graveyard of evidence; nobody sees the dead bodies.” We quickly recall Kawhi’s success, but how many others have been drafted and not developed, either sticking in the NBA despite their middling shooting or playing their way out of the NBA before their second contracts?
The if their shooting develops players in the 2020 draft included Anthony Edwards, LaMelo Ball, Patrick Williams, Isaac Okoro, and Killian Hayes. Hayes was drafted seventh, but did not last through his rookie contract, as he shot only 27.7% on three-point attempts in his 210 games. Edwards, the first pick, shot only 29.4% from the three-point line in college, but 77.2% from the free-throw line; he has improved to 35.3% and 79.3% thus far in his NBA career. Ball is a career 37.4% and 83.4%; I’m unsure of his pre-NBA percentages. Williams is a career 41% and 78% shooter, albeit on low volume, after shooting 32% and 83.8% in his one college season. Okoro has shot 34.7% and 73.2% after shooting 28.6% and 67.2% in his one college season. Each has shown some shooting improvement.
The 2024 NBA Draft is no different, as the projections of potential lottery picks Sarr, Buzelis, Castle, Clingan, Topić, Holland, Salaun, Williams, Collier, and others vary wildly based on how one views their potential shooting development.
Buzelis said recently he would be the first pick if he had shot better this season, which is probably true, but also a giant IF. He shot 26% from the three-point line and 70% from the free-throw line, albeit as a 19-year-old in the G-League. That giant if works for almost anyone above. None needs to become a high efficiency, high volume three-point shooter to develop into the draft’s best player, but they need to shoot well-enough for their other skills to flourish.
Other probable lottery picks, primarily Sheppard, Risacher, and McCain, face questions as to whether their shooting will translate as their value relies heavily on their shooting efficiency and volume.
I find the annual posts interesting for two reasons:
Shooting, the most important skill in basketball, appears relatively unimportant in player selection, at least in the lottery. Teams draft on potential, and more and more, potential appears to be some combination of anthropometrics, athleticism, high usage, basketball intelligence, competitiveness and other similar characteristics. Rarely does anyone suggest a player could be the best in the draft if he develops his vertical jump or stops making bad decisions with the ball! These players fall in the draft or are not considered as potential professional players. Instead, we hear things such as Sheppard definitely would be the first pick if he was two inches taller. It is easier to believe in shooting improvement than growing taller.
Shooting may improve because of selection bias. Every NBA player, regardless of how un-athletic they appear, has outlier athleticism compared to the average male. Furthermore, every player drafted has above-average or outlier abilities underlying their athleticism and sport-specific skills. Their balance, coordination, rhythm, and more are better than the average person or even the near misses, such as NCAA Division 1 players who were not drafted or European players who were never identified as NBA prospects. The argument, then, is not so much that any player can develop his shooting, but that anyone identified as possessing the requisite attributes to warrant a high draft selection likely has a sufficient base to expect improvement. Teams draft outliers at the top of the draft, and these outliers likely possess the characteristics necessary to develop their shooting.
The reported potential slip out of the lottery by Holland contradicts number one. He appears to possess most of the qualities and assets teams desire near the top of the draft. Who knows what will happen this week? Maybe a closer look during workouts has convinced teams he lacks the underlying qualities to improve his shooting, despite his other athletic gifts, and therefore is not the elite, top of the draft prospect many on the periphery believe him to be. His draft possession and development over the next few years will be fascinating and potentially a major story.
Edwards has improved his three-point shooting, but he shot free throws well in college and demonstrated obvious athleticism. Expecting shooting improvement from him likely was fairly straight-forward, although only in his third season has his three-point percentage exceed league average, and just barely. Williams also has improved his three-point shooting, but his excellent college free-throw shooting percentages suggested an improvement was likely. Despite the improvement, he shoots a low volume. Has his shooting truly improved or maybe just his shot selection, as his free-throw percentage actually has dropped? If he wants to take a leap beyond role player/defender, his volume and scoring must increase; can he maintain his efficiency with greater self-creation and volume?
As a college coach, proven shooters were rarely available to me through recruiting. I had fewer scholarships than other programs in our region, and our scholarships covered less, not to mention competing against NCAA schools to sign players at an NJCAA. Nobody who was a proven shooter with above-average athleticism, size, and more was likely to choose us.
Nevertheless, we were one of the top free-throw (percentage) and three-point shooting (percentage, makes) teams in the country; we easily had four players who could have been called our best shooter, and arguably the best shooter regionally and nationally (One finished second nationally in three-point percentage, shooting 50% on nearly three makes per game as a 180 Shooter, with much greater volume than the leader).
I never looked at shooting percentages when recruiting because I assumed most statistics were unreliable and/or small sample sizes. I watched movement largely, in addition to their shooting. I had to evaluate who appeared to shoot well based on small sample sizes and who I felt could improve. Coordination and rhythm are tough to define, but I looked for those qualities generally and with their shooting.
Improvement is primarily up to the individual and tied largely to internal qualities such as determination, motivation, concentration, and more, which are difficult to determine through the recruiting process. I tried to get a sense of the personality through the recruiting process, but recruiting is largely sales and marketing: Who knows what is truthful versus exaggerations or carefully-crafted narratives?
#DraftTwitter often looks at analytics and underlying metrics, which is logical because they are able to parse statistics and video far more granularly than I was able to as a junior-college head coach with no recruiting budget. NBA teams make bets on players worth millions and hundreds of millions of dollars; nobody makes a nine-figure decision off two minutes of highlights.
However, as I have seen through the spring, one can make statistics and analytics tell any story. A fan of Buzelis points to previous seasons of good shooting and the dysfunction with the Ignite team this season to explain poor shooting percentages, whereas a Buzelis detractor simply points to a season in the G-League to demonstrate poor shooting, even from the free-throw line.
Of course, this is a large debate about analytics and their use in general: Are they used to support a conclusion one’s made on his or her own, to question one’s conclusions, or as a starting point? If I watch Buzelis knowing he shot poorly this season, am I more likely to question his shooting than if I had no knowledge? Is that an honest or biased assessment?
These players are known and scouted for so long, a completely unbiased assessment is impossible, and people use analytics and statistics as an attempt to balance the eye test. However, analytics and statistics may tell the story of what the player has done, but not identify the potential to improve. Some percentages, such as the 37/77 college shooting above, have some apparent predictive ability generally, but cannot account for individuals. Individuals require the eye test to predict future performance or potential for development.
Last year, I disagreed with an NCAA Division 1 head coach, and those coaches who agreed with her, who advised recruits not to put free throws on a highlight tape. These coaches are evaluating players as they are; watching players shoot free-throws provides no more information to them than their statistics.
I disagreed because I evaluate players to determine who I feel has more room to improve or who I feel I can help to improve. Not all 50% free-throw shooters are the same. I may watch a 50% shooter and see a simple tweak and a reasonable expectation of considerable improvement; I may watch another and see a big project to elicit the same improvements. I may see a poor three-point shooter who shoots well from the free-throw line and know a small adjustment likely can extend the player’s range, whereas another player may shoot well from the free-throw line, but have a shooting style not conducive to movement shooting or greater range. I understand their viewpoint, as they recruit finished products, knowing they will not transform their skills; I evaluate to find players who have untapped potential who I feel I can help.
Luckily or unluckily, I did not have or look at statistics when recruiting the player above. I signed her based on these highlights. I did not even watch until the end, and made up my mind within the first minute. I saw a great shooter with some creativity I did not need any other basketball information: I never watched a game, spoke to a coach, checked her statistics, etc.
When I told the returners she had committed, the returning shooting guard (holdover from previous staff) looked up her statistics and said she was a better shooter, so she was not worried (this player had some off-court issues prior to my arrival, so I would not have been disappointed had she transferred).
There was no doubt in my mind the incoming player was better; I was astonished some statistics might suggest otherwise. I actually paused for a second, wondering if I should watch more than two minutes of highlights. Maybe those were every shot she made! She played with the National Team and spoke with a few NCAA D1 and D2 programs, I believe. She was not a complete unknown who nobody had seen, but nobody else, to my knowledge, offered her a scholarship. My pause lasted half a second; I trusted my eyes.
Here are her sophomore season highlights:
The assistant coach for the NCAA Division 1 who ultimately signed her called her the best shooter in the country during her sophomore season. I would never disagree, but I also struggle to call her, or any of the others, the best shooter on our own team.
It is hard for me to say how much she improved versus how much of her development was acclimating to playing in the United States, playing against college defenses, and getting stronger. She mentioned more shooting freedom, which has more to do with the behaviors of a head coach than actual shooting improvement.
Her shooting success — she shot over 40% for two seasons and set the school record for career three-pointers — was more through evaluation, the coaching style, and the team’s system of play than any specific shooting development. It was a matter of putting her in the right position and allowing her to thrive. Offering her a scholarship and believing she would be a great shooter were not difficult decisions for me.
I have not watched any of the potential draft picks enough to know if predicting their shooting development is as easy as it was for me with this player. I saw a player with a well-organized body. I saw a good athlete, despite others perceptions. She was balanced and rhythmic. These traits all led me toward believing in her shooting, even when moving up to play against much better, stronger, quicker defenders.
In the 2024 NBA Draft, Ryan Dunn from Virginia is one of the biggest wild cards because he is advertised as an NBA-ready, immediate impact defensive player with NBA DPOY potential, but he shot 20% 3FG and 53.2% FT%. Is that fixable? Can he overcome his poor shooting? I have called him a litmus test for NBA teams’ belief in their player development staffs. If a general manager truly believes in his team’s player development, Dunn should be a lottery pick; if not, he is a gamble inside the first round. We will see which team believes in its staff.
I watch his highlights and do not see someone who should shoot so poorly. I have seen one free-throw clip, which has circulated on Twitter as a reason not to draft him, but improving his free-throw shooting should not be too difficult physically. There are some easy tweaks I imagine should help (again, based on one free throw; I have no definitive judgement; I do not have Synergy to watch every shot ever taken by players like many on #DraftTwitter).
The bigger question is his mentality, both in terms of willingness to try new things to improve and also a potential lack of confidence from being told about his terrible shooting so much in the last year or more. If he is resilient and ignores social media, and has the strong work ethic one would assume any player known for defense would possess, some improvement should not be overly difficult. His percentages are so low, nearly anything will work a little bit. Of course, 25%/60% is still unplayable for a wing.
Without knowing anything about him, watching a single game, or watching more than three minutes of film, low 30s and 70% should be within range. He appears balanced and coordinated. He has obvious athleticism based on his defensive performances. The biggest questions are his rhythm and creating a rhythmic shot, and potential from overthinking from too many corrections and instructions, as his free-throw appeared overburdened by conscious control. There are ways to improve rhythm, technique, and more without overburdening a player with too many instructions, but it tends not to be the manner in which NBA coaches and trainers work with players. His progression will be interesting to watch.
Shooting is the most important skill, but it appears in college recruiting and NBA player selections, coaches believe they can develop shooting. The obvious athleticism, size, confidence, and more tend to be picked and signed first. Unfortunately, many teams do not develop shooting quite as easily as they imagine. Ultimately, the player has to want to improve, concentrate, and put in the effort, but many teams fail to create an environment in practices and games to elevate players skills. Most players improve when they move up a level, as they practice and play with better players and acclimate to the faster game and stronger, quicker opponents. They mature fully, lift weights, and take their sport more seriously, like a job, investing more time and focus into everything from workouts to sleep to diets. Every player should improve some, regardless of practices or instructions. To elevate players beyond this minimum expected improvement requires more from coaches and players.