🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Some facts about NBA percentages gleaned from various sites...

Of all High school b-ball players who then Go on to the to the NCAA - 1 in 35, so
2.9 percent. NCAA players to the NBA - 1.3 percent.
Currently there are 494 total players in 2018-19 NBA season. Of course the most prestigious D1 programs have the most guys on the NBA- Kentucky had 31 former players on 2018-19 NBA opening-day rosters, Duke had 25, UCLA had 17, North Carolina had 13, and Arizona and Kansas each had 12.

“There were 65 foreign players on 2018-19 NBA opening-day rosters that did not play for U.S. colleges, or 13.2% of the NBA total. That is 8 fewer foreign players than last season. A total of 15 current NBA players went from high schools to the NBA (3.0% of the NBA total), which is up from 10 players last season. That figure includes players which did not go to college but played overseas or worked out for a year on their own before the NBA draft. Just two NBA players attended a non-Division I college. Division I colleges provide a total of 412 NBA players (83.4%). Foreign players that played at U.S. colleges are counted under the appropriate Division I school listing. “
The average age of NBA players has been dropping steadily for the past 5 or 6 years, from 26.86 to 26.38.
And as for length of nba careers:

“Young basketball players that believe they might have a long NBA career should take a look at the second-to-last table on this page because it contains some unforgiving data. This table shows the number of NBA players with the corresponding number of years of NBA experience. For example, there are 89 rookie players on opening-day rosters this season that had no NBA experience coming into this season, and they make up 18.0% of the total of the 494 NBA players on opening-day rosters. Slightly over half (266, or 53.8%) of NBA players are rookies or have only 1, 2, or 3 years of NBA playing experience, and 91.1% of NBA players have 10 or fewer years of experience. Are you convinced that you will have a long, productive NBA career? This is very unlikely because only 44 players (8.9%) on 2018-19 NBA opening-day rosters have more than 10 years of NBA experience, and only 13 have 15 or more years of NBA experience! No players have 18 or 19 years of experience this season, and 2 have 20 years of experience.“

that’s the REALITY.

But as for PERCEPTION, Not surprisingly, of all D1 athletes in sports that have pro leagues, men’s NCAA b-ball players lead by far in the “somewhat likely” belief that they will make it in the NBA. According to a recent study, a whopping 76 percent of D1 players believe this. Remember, only 1.3 percent actually make it to the NBA
This is attributed in large part to the “self-bias phenomenon “ . (Or, maybe we can call this the Grimes phenomenon? :) These kids have so much attention paid to them so early on, it’s easy for them, and equally importantly, their parents, to form this view, in spite of the hard evidence. They are stars in Their community, and scouts, shoe reps etc give them so much praise, and so far they have reached every level of the athletic pyramid. And the belief that college is but a stepping stone to the pros, and that a college degree is not important, is skewed even higher in low income communities.

Also, another facet in the delusion is the belief that one would be “set for life” financially If they got an NBA contract.
According to one site, “Sixty percent of NBA players go broke within five years of departing the league.” The average pro career is pretty short relative to your active life span, whether it’s the NBA, G-league or overseas, and a surprisingly high number of pro basketball athletes squander their money, or underestimate what the future holds as far as how much money one will need to live and retire. After basketball, these players will likely need another career. There are so many coaching positions available, and most are not well paid.
And every study shows that a college degree is almost vital in what ever career one chooses. Although there is a recent uptick in current and former NBA players who are talking classes to work towards getting their degree, the number of players who have a degree hovers around 20 percent.

So.... as been said here before by many posters, I believe what the KU coaching staff need to do better is recruit the kind of kids whose families understand this reality better. kids and families who actually want a college degree, who value the whole college experience, who would die to play for a program as good as KU, and who understand that a scholarship to essentially attend a good university for free Is in fact hugely valuable. It gives them options for their future, no matter what path they choose. Now I know that this may not be possible in all cases for certain recruits, but it should be an increasing shift in how we build the program going forward.
Plus, stats also show that a team with seasoned juniors and seniors do well in the NCAA tourney for obvious reasons. They know the system, know better how to play as a team, and are more confident in their skills.
This should be our goal. We are easily a good enough program to get very talented kids at all positions who will grow over time, and at least a decent amount who would want to actually graduate. At KU.

Although it was a long time ago, in a really different time than now, I remember reading about Bill Walton’ s recruitment. Coach after coach came and pitched him and his parents with the promise of making Bill the star and centerpiece to their team, he would have everything he could want, don’t worry at all about the burden of his academic course load, because many tutors and assistants will make that part of college essentially disappear.
But Coach Wooden came and told the waltons the exact opposite. That playing for him at UCLA was going to be the HARDEST thing Bill ever did by far. He expected, in fact required, that his players maintain good grades on top of all the very demanding hard work of being part of his basketball program. Bill’s parents were sold on the spot. They knew their son, and knew this was exactly what He needed, even if Bill didn’t know it. This is what good parents do.

If our recruiters hear the parents of a prospect
want to talk a lot about how KU will get their kids into the nba, that should be a red flag. Move on.
Let the inclusion deluded kids go somewhere else.

We went the other way... McCarthy Hall kind of points that out.

I'm with you. How many kids out there DREAM about playing at KU? I venture to say that it's fewer every year. And why? Because we battle for the elite players and with the elite players it isn't about Kansas.... it's about them!

I miss it all being about Kansas. I attended KU in the 70's. Lived in an apartment just down past Naismith Drive on Alabama. Played a lot of ball in AFH. I would have given my left testicle to suit up for the team!

Now it feels like just a prep team for the NBA.

I think we target 3 and 4-star players that really appreciate Kansas and want to work their arses off. That means... "nightlife" is in the gym, not in the bars. I bet we could win every bit as much as we win now... and we will draw more and more fans to Kansas... especially young players!

@drgnslayr

There are plenty of kids that dream of playing at KU one day. But let me ask you this - do you want Mitch Lightfoot to be your starting C of PF?

Because that's what that gets you right now.

I went over to 247Sports to look at their top ranked three star player. Its Christian Braun, who is indeed slated to suit up for KU next year. That's great, except everyone on this board agrees that Braun probably needs a year before he will be ready to contribute at KU. You never know what you are going to get from recruits, but that's especially volatile the lower down you go. Braun might come to KU and absolutely light it up, and turn into a legitimate pro prospect. He also might not ever be anything more than a fringe rotation player. He could land anywhere in between. He could be outright unplayable at the P5 level.

If you recruit all three and four star players you are betting that you never miss on a recruit. There's no room for a Rio Adams, because you won't have one guy with the talent to make up for missing on a guy you thought could be a rotation piece. You can't miss on the guy you were counting on to fill one rotation spot because you won't have the overall talent to make up for a flawed roster.

Put it this way - if KU had all lower level recruits last year, they probably finish fifth or sixth in the Big 12 because there's no Dotson or Lawson to make up for the fact that the roster just didn't work together. Grimes saved our bacon against Michigan State. Dotson probably powered three or four wins himself. Lawson was indispensable. Take those guys off the roster and replace them with lesser players we probably lose five or six more games. Not on the bubble, but definitely a 7 or 8 seed line.

@Bosthawk Athletics is a pursuit that demands tons of confidence to succeed at any level. Part of the reason so many D1 athletes believe that they could someday have a pro career is that they have, at one point or another, gone toe to toe with an NBA caliber player and held their own. The instant a player believes they can't go to the next level, they start to level off from an improvement standpoint because they realize they are outmatched. You think you can advance until one day you aren't good enough to go on. It happens to everyone at some point. The lucky few make it to the NBA and have nice careers, but that's in large part because the process to get there is so rigorous.

So why would Grimes believe that he could go to the NBA? Well, most NBA players were at one time top level recruits, just like Grimes. There were thousands of high school basketball players that were graduating seniors this time last year, and no more than 10 were better than Quentin Grimes. Grimes was ALREADY in the top, elite percentile this time LAST YEAR compared to his peers. If you and I made a bet, and you gave me the top 25 players in the country in any given year, and I gave you everyone else, the chances that my group has more guys that play in the NBA for more than three years is always going to be higher because I always get the Kevin Durant's and Lebron James', while you are hoping for a Draymond Green instead of a Perry Ellis. That top group of players is always thinking that because they are already in the elite group, the same way kids that go to Yale and Harvard Law end up clerking for the Supreme Court - you're in the "Elite Group" already. Chances that you stay in that group are much better than the chances someone outside the Elite Group gets into the Elite Group.

Grimes is in the Elite Group. Maybe he falls out. But he's just as likely to track the career arc of Wayne Selden because he meets the minimum criteria for size and athleticism, unlike 90%+ of HS players.

@justanotherfan

Thanks for the response, and your response makes sense.

However...

I'm not satisfied with our development program. Love Hudy... but I think everything else falls short.

Our players.. mostly 5-star players... can't perform the fundamentals. This is what really chaps my backside.

I would start a Mitch Lightfoot over another Q. Q's stat line was so pathetic that it almost looked like he intentionally ran away from the ball. BTW, I like Q! I just want to kick him in the backside and have him for a week in practice.

I'm so sick of 5-star guys that spend all their practice time on fancy dunks, but don't have the slightest clue on how to seal off under the basket. Those fancy dunks lead to... ZERO WINS!

We live in one of the more competitive leagues, and most of our competition thrives on lower recruits. I'm not exactly totally thrilled with their development abilities either.

Under your premise... you are right. As long as we fail in developing players to a higher level, we best keep after recruiting top shelf talent.

I so miss seeing the game played at a higher level. I realize Naismith never experienced basketball near what it is today, but I have a feeling he is doing cartwheels in his grave over how much game we leave in the locker room because our guys fail on the fundamentals.

I think you and I feel the same way. I'm just venting frustration of the direction of D1 and our program.

Your statements are correct!

drgnslayr said:

@justanotherfan

Thanks for the response, and your response makes sense.

However...

I'm not satisfied with our development program. Love Hudy... but I think everything else falls short.

Our players.. mostly 5-star players... can't perform the fundamentals. This is what really chaps my backside.

I would start a Mitch Lightfoot over another Q. Q's stat line was so pathetic that it almost looked like he intentionally ran away from the ball. BTW, I like Q! I just want to kick him in the backside and have him for a week in practice.

I'm so sick of 5-star guys that spend all their practice time on fancy dunks, but don't have the slightest clue on how to seal off under the basket. Those fancy dunks lead to... ZERO WINS!

We live in one of the more competitive leagues, and most of our competition thrives on lower recruits. I'm not exactly totally thrilled with their development abilities either.

Under your premise... you are right. As long as we fail in developing players to a higher level, we best keep after recruiting top shelf talent.

I so miss seeing the game played at a higher level. I realize Naismith never experienced basketball near what it is today, but I have a feeling he is doing cartwheels in his grave over how much game we leave in the locker room because our guys fail on the fundamentals.

I think you and I feel the same way. I'm just venting frustration of the direction of D1 and our program.

Your statements are correct!

The big difference is that in order to play D1 P5 basketball today, you must have X level of athleticism. If you do not meet X level of athleticism, you simply cannot play at that level, regardless of how skilled you are.

Once you surpass X level of athleticism, let's pick a random number, say 50, then you are on the scale. Now, you also have to be a minimum skill level. Let's say that's a 50, too.

At that point, your ability to perform at the D1 level is your athleticism charted against skill, but in order to play at the P5 level, you need to be better than 115 total. If you are extremely athletic, you can be less skilled. If you are extremely skilled, you can be less athletic (provided you are above 50).

So we have already eliminated all of the people that are 1-49 on the athleticism scale and the skill scale, as well as a good portion of the 50-65 or so because their skill level did not make up for their athletic limitations or vice versa.

The problem, however, is that because you have to have X athleticism to make it to the D1 level, the kids that make up D1 players are largely kids that have never had to be fundamentally sound because they were so much more athletic than their peers. They were 60+ when most HS players are 30 or less. Their athletic ability was far and away better than anyone they played against (one reason its hard to judge how a non-elite player will translate to the college game).

Take a guy like Conner Frankamp. He was a dominant HS player. Could score from anywhere. Quicker than most anyone that guarded him in HS. Able to get any shot he wanted, any time he wanted.

Skillwise, Conner was probably something like a 65. Athletically, he was probably like a 55. Against most HS players, that's blowing them away. Against a D1 P5 player, that's towards the bottom of the scale.

These are just random numbers, obviously, but you get the point. Conner Frankamp wasn't a mind blowing athlete, but he was a much better athlete than just about anyone he faced in HS. He could have bad footwork defensively and still stay in position. He could ball watch a bit and still recover.

Now move up to someone like Zion Williamson. Athletically, Williamson is probably more like a 90 or better. If Frankamp was overwhelming most HS players, imagine how easy it was for Zion Williamson. I bet Zion Williamson didn't box out more than 5 times in his entire HS career. He was just so physically talented that it didn't matter. He could run around guys, jump over them, etc. He's in the 1% of the 1%.

How do you teach a guy like that fundamentals when he's so much faster than everyone else that he can be a little careless or sloppy and it doesn't show up because he gets the rebound anyway. He blocks the shot anyway. He scores anyway. You can't emphasize fundamentals until he gets to the NBA where he suddenly encounters Kawhi Leonard or Jimmy Butler and he ends up traveling or getting an offensive foul because they are quicker and more talented than anyone he's ever seen before, or until Joel Embiid grabs the rebound because he didn't box him out, or until someone gets a tip dunk on him.

Then suddenly, he has to get back to fundamentals. He has to really box out, not just pretend to. He has to really rotate all the way to the shooter, because Klay Thompson doesn't care that you closed out to within four feet of him. He has to really get into a defensive stance because Damien Lillard is too quick to just bend at the waist. Those guys are 75's and 85's athletically. He can't just half do things.

But you have to hit that wall because most kids don't even realize they aren't doing it properly because their athleticism covers it up.

justanotherfan said:

drgnslayr said:

@justanotherfan

Thanks for the response, and your response makes sense.

However...

I'm not satisfied with our development program. Love Hudy... but I think everything else falls short.

Our players.. mostly 5-star players... can't perform the fundamentals. This is what really chaps my backside.

I would start a Mitch Lightfoot over another Q. Q's stat line was so pathetic that it almost looked like he intentionally ran away from the ball. BTW, I like Q! I just want to kick him in the backside and have him for a week in practice.

I'm so sick of 5-star guys that spend all their practice time on fancy dunks, but don't have the slightest clue on how to seal off under the basket. Those fancy dunks lead to... ZERO WINS!

We live in one of the more competitive leagues, and most of our competition thrives on lower recruits. I'm not exactly totally thrilled with their development abilities either.

Under your premise... you are right. As long as we fail in developing players to a higher level, we best keep after recruiting top shelf talent.

I so miss seeing the game played at a higher level. I realize Naismith never experienced basketball near what it is today, but I have a feeling he is doing cartwheels in his grave over how much game we leave in the locker room because our guys fail on the fundamentals.

I think you and I feel the same way. I'm just venting frustration of the direction of D1 and our program.

Your statements are correct!

The big difference is that in order to play D1 P5 basketball today, you must have X level of athleticism. If you do not meet X level of athleticism, you simply cannot play at that level, regardless of how skilled you are.

Once you surpass X level of athleticism, let's pick a random number, say 50, then you are on the scale. Now, you also have to be a minimum skill level. Let's say that's a 50, too.

At that point, your ability to perform at the D1 level is your athleticism charted against skill, but in order to play at the P5 level, you need to be better than 115 total. If you are extremely athletic, you can be less skilled. If you are extremely skilled, you can be less athletic (provided you are above 50).

So we have already eliminated all of the people that are 1-49 on the athleticism scale and the skill scale, as well as a good portion of the 50-65 or so because their skill level did not make up for their athletic limitations or vice versa.

The problem, however, is that because you have to have X athleticism to make it to the D1 level, the kids that make up D1 players are largely kids that have never had to be fundamentally sound because they were so much more athletic than their peers. They were 60+ when most HS players are 30 or less. Their athletic ability was far and away better than anyone they played against (one reason its hard to judge how a non-elite player will translate to the college game).

Take a guy like Conner Frankamp. He was a dominant HS player. Could score from anywhere. Quicker than most anyone that guarded him in HS. Able to get any shot he wanted, any time he wanted.

Skillwise, Conner was probably something like a 65. Athletically, he was probably like a 55. Against most HS players, that's blowing them away. Against a D1 P5 player, that's towards the bottom of the scale.

These are just random numbers, obviously, but you get the point. Conner Frankamp wasn't a mind blowing athlete, but he was a much better athlete than just about anyone he faced in HS. He could have bad footwork defensively and still stay in position. He could ball watch a bit and still recover.

Now move up to someone like Zion Williamson. Athletically, Williamson is probably more like a 90 or better. If Frankamp was overwhelming most HS players, imagine how easy it was for Zion Williamson. I bet Zion Williamson didn't box out more than 5 times in his entire HS career. He was just so physically talented that it didn't matter. He could run around guys, jump over them, etc. He's in the 1% of the 1%.

How do you teach a guy like that fundamentals when he's so much faster than everyone else that he can be a little careless or sloppy and it doesn't show up because he gets the rebound anyway. He blocks the shot anyway. He scores anyway. You can't emphasize fundamentals until he gets to the NBA where he suddenly encounters Kawhi Leonard or Jimmy Butler and he ends up traveling or getting an offensive foul because they are quicker and more talented than anyone he's ever seen before, or until Joel Embiid grabs the rebound because he didn't box him out, or until someone gets a tip dunk on him.

Then suddenly, he has to get back to fundamentals. He has to really box out, not just pretend to. He has to really rotate all the way to the shooter, because Klay Thompson doesn't care that you closed out to within four feet of him. He has to really get into a defensive stance because Damien Lillard is too quick to just bend at the waist. Those guys are 75's and 85's athletically. He can't just half do things.

But you have to hit that wall because most kids don't even realize they aren't doing it properly because their athleticism covers it up.

And there is the rub, huh? As I have all but said (a good series here or there aside) the constant influx of not-ready-for-primetime players into the NBA has all but killed the league compared to what it used to be. None of them can play D and all want to be stars rather than just playing the game. The me, my, mine aspect of today's NBA is, if you think about it, a very microcosm of America.

Marco said:

And there is the rub, huh? As I have all but said (a good series here or there aside) the constant influx of not-ready-for-primetime players into the NBA has all but killed the league compared to what it used to be. None of them can play D and all want to be stars rather than just playing the game. The me, my, mine aspect of today's NBA is, if you think about it, a very microcosm of America.

I would actually disagree with you there. I would say that the league overall has a much higher skill level than at any time in its history. The difference is just that its so much harder to survive in the league because of that high level of skill.

Think about what many people call the "Golden Age" of NBA basketball, basically from 1982 or 1983 until 1989. Back in the "Golden Age", teams almost always pushed the ball at breakneck pace. As a league, teams were averaging nearly 90 shots a game while turning the ball over in the high teens (17 or 18) and shooting almost 30 FTs a game. The pace was faster, there were more possessions (and turnovers) etc.

Today's game is more efficient. Teams turn the ball over much less - the 17.2 TO per game that Phoenix averaged three years ago would have been one of the lower totals in the League during the "Golden Age."

Teams also shot much worse from the perimeter. As a league, the NBA shot 30% from three in 1986-87. That gets you benched now. No team shot more than about 8 threes a game then. Now, most every team makes 8 threes a game.

The number of assists compared to made shots is about the same (more threes and fewer shot attempts means fewer assist chances). Blocks and steals are also fairly consistent. This also tells us that the turnover numbers are down now because of less sloppy play (balls thrown away, lost out of bounds, etc) and not because of steals.

There are just so many more players that can hurt you from so many different spots now. You have to guard a 7 foot center like Jokic at the three point line or he will hurt you. A guy like Joel Embiid can Euro step off the dribble. There weren't multiple centers in the NBA in the 80's that could shoot the ball from three. Just about every team has a guy that can do that now.

It's harder to play defense because every guy can hit a 20 footer now, so you can't leave that shot open, but you still have to cut off the drive. PGs can rise up and dunk in traffic. That wasn't generally happening back then.

The guys in the NBA are so good now it's almost like we are watching the game evolve right in front of us because the way you have to play offense and defense is much different.

Put it to you this way. 20 or 30 years ago, none of us on this board would be complaining that Marcus Garrett couldn't shoot, because nobody would expect every guard to be able to shoot the three. Now, that's a basic requirement if you are a perimeter player. KU has had tons of teams where they basically only had one or two guys that could actually shoot threes. Now, we see a team like that and criticize the "lack of shooting."

@justanotherfan

I think your last post was right on the money... players do have to be of a pretty high level to make it in the NBA, and also be built to withstand the toughness of a long season.

And I buy in to your idea about players like Zion not having to learn the fundamentals because they dominate anyways (at least, in the college ranks).

I think you are right on the money, and that actually supports my idea of going after guys just below the elite status that need to really fight to the top.

I thought the Duke collapse this year really showed us all that well coached-up players of less than the top elite status could take it to the elite guys. On the college level, the elites can't deal with the teams that really execute team ball, and are also individually disciplined in the fundamentals.

My hat is off to Virginia... Bennett stuck to his guns after facing humiliating defeat the previous year. It seemed that everyone was after him for playing "bad ball." If we did ever lose Self... I know Bennett would be a heavy consideration in my book.

I think I would like to take this conversation over into a new thread... and I hope you will make your presence known there because you have a lot to offer.

Lol at the Knicks and Lakers. What you going to trade to the pelicans now for Davis?

Pels should seriously try to get another Max contract guy in to come play. Holliday, Zion, Davis and another formidable player could actually be a decent team. And if you suck, you trade Davis before the deadline and still get a big haul because the reason to trade for him is to be able to offer him the biggest contract.

But they could legitimately end up with two transcendent athletes on the same team. They're really only one piece away from being good. I'd legitimately target Klay, Jimmy, Tobias or Deangelo Russell.

justanotherfan said:

Marco said:

And there is the rub, huh? As I have all but said (a good series here or there aside) the constant influx of not-ready-for-primetime players into the NBA has all but killed the league compared to what it used to be. None of them can play D and all want to be stars rather than just playing the game. The me, my, mine aspect of today's NBA is, if you think about it, a very microcosm of America.

I would actually disagree with you there. I would say that the league overall has a much higher skill level than at any time in its history. The difference is just that its so much harder to survive in the league because of that high level of skill.

Think about what many people call the "Golden Age" of NBA basketball, basically from 1982 or 1983 until 1989. Back in the "Golden Age", teams almost always pushed the ball at breakneck pace. As a league, teams were averaging nearly 90 shots a game while turning the ball over in the high teens (17 or 18) and shooting almost 30 FTs a game. The pace was faster, there were more possessions (and turnovers) etc.

Today's game is more efficient. Teams turn the ball over much less - the 17.2 TO per game that Phoenix averaged three years ago would have been one of the lower totals in the League during the "Golden Age."

Teams also shot much worse from the perimeter. As a league, the NBA shot 30% from three in 1986-87. That gets you benched now. No team shot more than about 8 threes a game then. Now, most every team makes 8 threes a game.

The number of assists compared to made shots is about the same (more threes and fewer shot attempts means fewer assist chances). Blocks and steals are also fairly consistent. This also tells us that the turnover numbers are down now because of less sloppy play (balls thrown away, lost out of bounds, etc) and not because of steals.

There are just so many more players that can hurt you from so many different spots now. You have to guard a 7 foot center like Jokic at the three point line or he will hurt you. A guy like Joel Embiid can Euro step off the dribble. There weren't multiple centers in the NBA in the 80's that could shoot the ball from three. Just about every team has a guy that can do that now.

It's harder to play defense because every guy can hit a 20 footer now, so you can't leave that shot open, but you still have to cut off the drive. PGs can rise up and dunk in traffic. That wasn't generally happening back then.

The guys in the NBA are so good now it's almost like we are watching the game evolve right in front of us because the way you have to play offense and defense is much different.

Put it to you this way. 20 or 30 years ago, none of us on this board would be complaining that Marcus Garrett couldn't shoot, because nobody would expect every guard to be able to shoot the three. Now, that's a basic requirement if you are a perimeter player. KU has had tons of teams where they basically only had one or two guys that could actually shoot threes. Now, we see a team like that and criticize the "lack of shooting."

You are making my point for me, 20 to 30 years ago the league was a decent to even great product. In today's NBA players both big and small take an inordinate amount of 3-point shots often times making about 15% of them which would, infact (Lol!), indicate that by today's standards Garrett is close to being a great 3-point shooter. And defensively? He is already better than 95% of them. The National Baby Association blows......

@justanotherfan That's some good stuff, man. Great post.

@Marco

You do realize that in today's NBA, no team shot worse that 33% from three this year. That would have led the league for most of the 1980's. And they shoot it at a higher volume, too, so its not like they are building up percentages by shooting less.

Garrett, at his current skill level could have been a good perimeter player in the 1980's NBA. He's essentially unplayable at that level now. He would have to be the best defensive player in the league.

Heck, Doke would have been a highly coveted draft pick in the 1980s NBA, even with his injury history. He would have been a lottery pick 15 years ago! Now, his lack of versatility means he stays at Kansas.

Also, you are wrong about NBA shooters shooting only 15% from three. Even as an exaggeration, that's horribly incorrect. For qualified shooters, only four (out of 130) shot worse than 32% from three - Russell Westbrook (29%), Kyle Kuzma (30%), Nikola Jokic (30%) and Austin Rivers (31%).

There were more qualified shooters OVER 45% (Joe Harris, Danny Green, Seth Curry) than under 30%.

For comparison sake, I picked the 1986-87 season. There were 32 qualified three point shooters. Seven shot above 40%, including two above 45% Nine shot under 32%. Four shot under 30%. Neither of the guys that shot over 45% made 40 threes that year.

Of the three guys that made over 45% of their threes this season, they ALL made at least 113, and Danny Green made 198. That's like Babe Ruth hitting 60 homers by himself in 1927 when no other team in the league hit more than 56. The league would have gone insane to see a guy shoot that well from the perimeter with that kind of volume.

justanotherfan said:

@Marco

You do realize that in today's NBA, no team shot worse that 33% from three this year. That would have led the league for most of the 1980's. And they shoot it at a higher volume, too, so its not like they are building up percentages by shooting less.

Garrett, at his current skill level could have been a good perimeter player in the 1980's NBA. He's essentially unplayable at that level now. He would have to be the best defensive player in the league.

Heck, Doke would have been a highly coveted draft pick in the 1980s NBA, even with his injury history. He would have been a lottery pick 15 years ago! Now, his lack of versatility means he stays at Kansas.

Also, you are wrong about NBA shooters shooting only 15% from three. Even as an exaggeration, that's horribly incorrect. For qualified shooters, only four (out of 130) shot worse than 32% from three - Russell Westbrook (29%), Kyle Kuzma (30%), Nikola Jokic (30%) and Austin Rivers (31%).

There were more qualified shooters OVER 45% (Joe Harris, Danny Green, Seth Curry) than under 30%.

For comparison sake, I picked the 1986-87 season. There were 32 qualified three point shooters. Seven shot above 40%, including two above 45% Nine shot under 32%. Four shot under 30%. Neither of the guys that shot over 45% made 40 threes that year.

Of the three guys that made over 45% of their threes this season, they ALL made at least 113, and Danny Green made 198. That's like Babe Ruth hitting 60 homers by himself in 1927 when no other team in the league hit more than 56. The league would have gone insane to see a guy shoot that well from the perimeter with that kind of volume.

I use the eye test.... There are times that NBA defense is so laughable that the channel demands to be changed and usually is. Again, you sight statistics, and are making my point.... The 3-point and overall shooting percentages in the NBA are going down every year. Why? Because they are jacking up too many damn threes and do not pass the ball for easier shots. And It is all ISO inside, therefore why even play defense (which they don't)? Bad product. Low to mid 30s from 3 for so-called pros? Low to mid 30s from 3 for so-called pros! Why do you think guys like Doncic are dominating? The NBA is a bad product and it is only going to get worse. The NCAA tournament this year blew away anything that the NBA can offer, anything. Even the so-called pro prognosticators all but admitted as much.

Marco said:

justanotherfan said:

@Marco

I use the eye test.... There are times that NBA defense is so laughable that the channel demands to be changed and usually is. Again, you sight statistics, and are making my point.... The 3-point and overall shooting percentages in the NBA are going down every year. Why? Because they are jacking up too many damn threes and do not pass the ball for easier shots. And It is all ISO inside, therefore why even play defense (which they don't)? Bad product. Low to mid 30s from 3 for so-called pros? Low to mid 30s from 3 for so-called pros! Why do you think guys like Doncic are dominating? The NBA is a bad product and it is only going to get worse. The NCAA tournament this year blew away anything that the NBA can offer, anything. Even the so-called pro prognosticators all but admitted as much.

Shooting percentages are NOT going down. That is just factually incorrect.

If you want to say that the analytics of shooting more threes makes the game less enjoyable, that's a subjective argument. We can agree or disagree on that. But saying that shooting percentages are down is objectively wrong. They are not. 2Pt% is steady. 3Pt% is steady, after trending up in recent years.