Can We Trust Pre-Draft Shooting Improvements?
It's that time of the year where every questionable shooter is 'making tweaks' during the pre-draft process. Can we really trust what we're hearing and seeing?
Unlike other skills, shooting is one where the numbers mean a whole damn lot. In the coaching profession, we typically say about our teams that “you are what your record says you are.” In some regard, shooters are the same way: you’re really only as good as your numbers say.
There’s another old saying that can apply to shooting: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! Too often, impactful shooters with strokes that aren’t aesthetically pleasing or typical get punished for doing so. We’re guilty of that just a few years ago with Tyrese Haliburton, a guy who shot 42.6% from 3 over a two-year sample at Iowa State but featured a funky form. He’s been above 40% each of his first two NBA seasons. When guys have it at the college level at a certain mark, it’s rare to see them take a wild dip. The more a sample there is to see that shot at the college level, the more comfortable scouts can feel in its translation.
Evaluating shooting projection is much more difficult. There’s an intersection between current impact and shooting form that inevitably takes over the pre-draft landscape. Shooting is such an important skill for success in the NBA, but not every prospect enters the league polished with it. Predicting those who didn’t shoot it well, but may be able to gain that skill, is a challenge.
As a general manager or drafting team, small sample sizes are the ultimate mental torture chamber. Shooting it well in a short window (especially at the end of a season) can prove upward trajectory or potential. Adding a shot during the later parts of the draft process that wasn’t shown during the year is the ultimate tease: scouts never know how much to buy into a shot they see in workout settings, from one or two scrimmages but never got the chance to see in live game action consistently. College coaches are the ones who dictate shot selection in their programs, and as we say in our Ten Commandments of Scouting, just because a prospect didn’t show a skill doesn’t necessarily mean he can’t.
We put together an overall matrix that can explain how the metrics and the form meet. The higher you are in both, the more trustworthy a prospect becomes as a shooter. The lower in both, the less likely it becomes to project that they’ll shoot it well.
The two tough quadrants for projections: high in one category, low in another. The poor form but shot goes in guys (Haliburton, for example) is about figuring out which parts of their form could be actually detrimental or handicapping on an NBA floor. Volume matters in that equation, as the more volume there is, the more nonsensical picking this apart becomes.
That lower right corner, a common one for prospects to be in, is what gives us the most trouble. If the form looks fine (ie doesn’t need a mechanical overhaul) but doesn’t result in a ton of makes, what’s the reason for the misses? Is it touch? Is it just poor sample? Will they change with more reps or by simply adding strength to their body? Are those poor numbers impacted by streakiness, hot-and-cold stretches, role on the team, or something else?
This draft class in particular has plenty of guys who didn’t shoot it well (or at all) in college who have popped up as having improvements ahead of the draft — fixing parts of their form or at least generating buzz that they’re turning into strong shooters. We’ll offer up our analysis for how much we buy into or believe each prospect’s shot, the unique factors surrounding its projection, the form breakdown, and more. All of this goes into answering one or two major questions:
What matters more: buying into the form or proof with the numbers?
How much can we really trust shooting improvements made during the pre-draft process?
Christian Koloko, Arizona
Let’s start with the one that’s been buzzing most since the combine: Arizona big man Christian Koloko made 0 3-pointers during his three-year college career. He only attempted five, and while the form wasn’t atrocious, it clearly was nowhere near game reps.
The first sign of turning heads came at the combine, as Koloko finished second in the 3-point star drill, drilling 16 of 25 looks, according to Rafael Barlowe:
Koloko’s entire draft stock at his position changes if he can stretch the floor reliably. He’s been trying to flash that shooting more in draft workouts, too. He looks comfortable with the attempts, and while the form isn’t elite by any means, it’s still a pretty consistent stroke, has a high release and demonstrates touch in the mid-range.
We are, by nature, fairly risk-averse with things like this. We would have to feel really good about the shooting projection to let a workout video and a combine performance scoot Koloko up our board just due to the potential for added shooting. It’s intriguing no doubt, but we tend to value game tape and what guys can do in those settings over the intrigue of the pre-draft circuit. Everything is a data point, and this one is wildly intriguing. But none of it is functional to games yet, so we’re steering clear from buying in too much.
Tari Eason, LSU
For what it’s worth, there are rumors out there that Tari Eason hasn’t been doing incredibly well on the workout circuit. He came out of the college season with a fairly inconsistent reputation as a shooter and, from what we’ve heard, that inconsistency is still apparent. Somewhat stiff form (particularly off the bounce) and hesitant to shoot, Eason finished the year going 36% from 3 on the whole, a solid mark that could get folks to buy into his upside.
He was 30.2% from deep over the first 20 games, then 42.9% over the final 13. That’s a pretty large swing. Picking apart the numbers is hard to do. Did he get better over the second-half of the season in a way that’s sustainable? Mid-season improvements are challenging for scouts because it’s hard to know if they’re indicative of long-term impact or simply a hot streak.
Combine the form questions with the numbers that jump all over the page and you’re left with a difficult projection. Eason’s feel overall leaves us pessimistic on his offensive upside, especially in comparison to other draft pundits (he is a late-1st guy at most on our board). He’s made some mechanical tweaks and can keep getting better, but we hesitate to buy the shot.
Kendall Brown, Baylor
Brown is also tricky here. He combines the pre-draft workout fad with something incredibly frustrating to watch in games: Brown didn’t even want to shoot. He rarely looked at the basket, and while he shot 34.1% from 3, the volume was incredibly low. He didn’t attempt a triple in 10 of his 34 games, passed up open looks to pass or drive, and was played like a non-shooter all season long.
The mid-range was fairly kind to Brown in some regards, but reliable range to 3 would require a great deal of consistency on his form being added. The Baylor tape revealed different speeds, changing release points and subpar footwork pre-catch. Many of those areas can and will be improved simply with increased reps.
What’s so hard in projecting a shooter is in knowing where that confidence point is. Brown doesn’t want to shoot right now when he’s on a floor. He shot 34% as a freshman, and that felt high because of how he carried himself and opponents guarded him. If the mechanical changes happen and improve some areas, he could still feel that mental block. Or they could be the confidence-booster that gives him a dependable spot-up game. Nothing breeds confidence like consistent hard work.
New Portland Trail Blazers executive Mike Schmitz visited a Kendall Brown workout and recorded some of his spot-up shooting. We’ve got to be honest: the form doesn’t really impress us.
He’s definitely repping it over and over again to see if he’ll gain that comfort and consistency. The release point is a tad low and slow, but this is the ground floor to start on. If he can keep draining them with touch, it’s the first step in the development towards getting him ready for spot-up duty. Build the confidence with the current form, make one tweak afterwards, speed it up a bit, then rep it until it’s fluid and less mechanical. A process will take place, and this is super early on in that process for Kendall.
Dyson Daniels, G-League Ignite
With Tari Eason, we talked about the in-season improvement as a shooter. Over his final eight games, Daniels shot 46.4% from 3. That’s a small sample size, but is about a third of the G-League Ignite season and a trajectory backed up by comfort with the form. Nothing about his catch-and-shoot form was overwhelmingly wrong during the start of the season.
Here’s the kicker: even with that boost at the end of the year, Daniels only shot 30.8% on catch-and-shoot looks. Consistency with the release, speeding it up a bit… there were small tweaks to make, but it appeared Daniels has made them. That was reinforced by a great individual pro day workout at the NBA Draft Combine, where his shooting stood out. The difference in Daniels and Eason? In some regard, it’s blind faith, just a belief in the form, it’s fluidity and its confidence. In another regard, it’s about how the form really wasn’t that bad to begin with in Daniels’ case. He’s just started making them more.
Ousmane Dieng, NZ Breakers
Ousmane is at the confluence of all these factors. Inconsistent form, which is the result of many of his misses, is bothersome. He shoots it too low at time, concerning for someone of his size. He started the year horribly from deep: 16.8% from 3 in the first half of the season. Each of the last two complete years, he’s at 27% from 3 — a large enough sample that could override any hot streak to come at the end of the year.
Of course, Dieng had such a hot streak. The second half of his season was with an increased role, but the hot streak didn’t translate to overwhelmingly positive 3-point numbers: he shot 29.4% from deep.
We want to buy into Dieng as a shooter because we see a glaring inconsistency that’s evident in his misses: the low release. If he has time and gets that ball nice and high, his touch is really nice. There’s just a growing sample of data that points to him not being effective from deep.
Dieng is in the “proceed, but with extreme caution” category. He’s too young to give up on and has such nice touch that an investment in his shooting could really explode his game to the next level. But when people talk about his late-season improvements, make sure you don’t confuse that with a desire to buy in so heavily to him as a catch-and-shoot guy. The numbers were still pretty troubling over that stretch of the year.
AJ Griffin, Duke
This year’s version of our Tyrese Haliburton evaluation, Griffin is a statistically impactful shooter whose form bothers us. At some point, the sample size of positive shooting is going to overrule the form concerns. That was our big lesson learned from scouting Haliburton a few years ago.
The question is about finding where that line is. Griffin may have crossed it with such an absurdly elite freshman season; a regression by eight percentage points still puts him as a really valuable shooter. That said, we need to have a certain amount of volume (a large enough sample size) to believe that shooting impact is enough to make up for the form concerns. Is one year of college, and 39 games, enough?
We’re starting to lean that way. At first, the wide base (as Matt Pennie calls it, the Jeff Bagwellian form) really irked us. But the touch is legit, and he has a quick enough release that he’s okay shrinking himself a tad.
Griffin stays as a top-20 prospect on our board simply because of his shooting. We’re worried about the movement aspect, but in a simple spot-up role, he’s going to be dynamite. We’re getting much more comfortable with that evaluation, and it’s rubbing off on a slight late surge for Griffin closer to lottery territory for us.
Max Christie, Michigan State
Of all the guys on this list, Christie is the first whose NBA role is pretty much based around his shooting: it’s supposed to be his bread-and-butter. Yet he shot 32% from deep at Michigan State as a freshman, far too low of a number to be comforting for a high-volume guy.
The numbers likely mean more for guys who build their entire NBA role off the shot going in. We like Christie in movement roles and see nothing off with his mechanics. The form on spot-ups is fine, and he knows how to create space. He just… didn’t make shots.
In some instances, the form being so solid and consistent helps us shake off any concerns about the numbers. Seeing zero glaring issues is what makes us believe in Christie as a top-20 guy, regardless of the poor freshman campaign.
Christie isn’t the only guy to fit into this mold. Others like Caleb Houstan, Patrick Baldwin Jr., and Johnny Juzang are prospects whose major strengths are, in theory, based on the long ball. Christie is the best movement shooter of the group and offers sturdy defense. If a team feels comfortable in his shooting numbers rebounding from a tough freshman year, he’ll be a first-round guy.
Other intriguing names
Jeremy Sochan, Baylor - Sochan shot 36% on spot-up catch-and-shoot looks this year. His pick-and-pop shot isn’t there yet, nor is his off-the-dribble game. Sochan is a wildly good defensive prospect who shows some creation and feel flashes with the ball in his hands. A solid, safe off-ball role is important for him on offense, and while the mechanics are a bit tricky, he’s cleaned it up a bit in pre-draft videos that have surfaced.
EJ Liddell, Ohio State - Liddell tested the waters last year, came back to school and turned himself into a potential first-round selection. His 3-point shooting improvements played a large role in that: he was one of the nation’s best pick-and-pop threats, and shot 37.4% from deep. That’s a good mark for a stretch big.
Two questions emerge for Liddell. First, how much do we trust that level of improvement after the first two years in college (30.2%) were subpar? Second, the form hasn’t improved that drastically, as he kind of one-hands it and shoots a tad on the way down. We’re trying not to fall into that trap of nit-picking form if the ball goes in, but we do have some concerns with Liddell’s jumper projection.
Trevor Keels, Duke - One avenue we didn’t delve into too deeply in this piece: pre-college shooting samples. As a high schooler, Trevor Keels was an elite shooter. I mean elite. That didn’t come to pass in his lone year at Duke. He’s seen as a potential first round guy in 2022, and it seems like those most bullish on his stock would buy into the shooting. He’s got solid form, but his hips are somewhat stiff, limiting movement upside. Keels is another tough guy to peg.
Trevion Williams, Purdue - Williams didn’t shoot the ball well with the Boilermakers during his four-year career. He flashes some touch and tested well in shooting drills at the combine. A jumper with range to 3 would do wonders for his offensive ceiling, but the overwhelming four-year sample is likely too large to override with just a few positive workouts.
Josh Minott, Memphis - No prospect with first round potential needed a more complete overhaul of their form and mechanics more than Minott. He was neither making them nor looking good while doing it. The overhaul will take time, so it’s hard to judge it based on workouts right now.