How many of the players above Steph surprise you that they're above him?
Hubert Davis! BJ Armstrong? Sure, I knew they were good shooters, but, SECOND and twelfth ALL TIME? Seth better than Steph?
What they need to do is weight the percentages by distance from the hoop.
Rank Player 3P%
1. Steve Kerr .4540
2. Hubert Davis .4409
3. Luke Kennard .4390
4. Dražen Petrović .4374
5. Joe Harris .4359
6. Jason Kapono .4336
7. Seth Curry .4324
8. Tim Legler .4312
9. Steve Novak .4301
10. Kyle Korver .4287
11. Steve Nash* .4278
12. B.J. Armstrong .4249
13. Stephen Curry .4233
Here's a shocker for me: KAT is higher than Ray Allen? 45 vs 48?!!
Also in the top 100:
Trent Tucker (26),
Jose Calderon (28),
Allan Houston (40),
and Captain Brunson (87)
https://www.basketball-reference.com/lea...
Hubert Davis would have been really good in this era.
SergioNYK wrote:Hubert Davis would have been really good in this era.
Drazen would've been amazing.
You have to consider the volume, or lack thereof.
Panos wrote:franco12 wrote:You have to consider the volume, or lack thereof.
For whom?
For everyone. If Hubert were in today's NBA, he is not shooting that percentage. He is still going to be a good shooter, but a team would likely push his volume up.
The most 3s he shot was in 94/95. He took 288. We were 7th in the league with 11.1 per game. John Starks led in 3ptas with 611.
Stephen Curry is averaging 11.1 Attempts himself this year.
Also - * for Hubert is the distance was shortened in 1994/5 until it reverted in 1997/98. I had totally forgotten or never actually noticed.
So - if Hubert were in the league today, with his youth! and shooting abilities - a team would likely have him shooting far more, and the percent would drop because more of them would likely be bad ones. Where back in the day when it was more novel, you only took them when truly open or when needed.
SergioNYK wrote:Hubert Davis would have been really good in this era.
Yes and Allan Houston would be James Harden. Seriously
Philc1 wrote:SergioNYK wrote:Hubert Davis would have been really good in this era.
Yes and Allan Houston would be James Harden. Seriously
Phil, you certainly know how to endear yourself among friends.
Davis career avg was .441 over a 12 year career.
Not the most athletic player, and his career existed in an era were the 3pt shot was not a priority.
Sergio gave his opinion. You sniped like a little bitch: "Seriously"?
Dude what's that? You offer nothing to dispel his opinion or produce a valid response. Just a lazy one.
Nalod wrote:Philc1 wrote:SergioNYK wrote:Hubert Davis would have been really good in this era.
Yes and Allan Houston would be James Harden. Seriously
Phil, you certainly know how to endear yourself among friends.
Davis career avg was .441 over a 12 year career.
Not the most athletic player, and his career existed in an era were the 3pt shot was not a priority.
Sergio gave his opinion. You sniped like a little bitch: "Seriously"?
Dude what's that? You offer nothing to dispel his opinion or produce a valid response. Just a lazy one.
I’d like you to try to make sense
