How often do chuckers learn better shot selection?

[LooseCannon]

First, let's define the term "chucker":
a) He has a shoot-first mentality
b) Would rather take a difficult shot than move the ball and make a pass
c) Often settles for inefficient shots such as contested long twos, especially when he is capable of more efficient shots
d) Not only takes bad shots, but has little regard for things such as the shot clock in deciding when to take a shot

You're not a chucker if you take a lot of shots but you justify them by taking efficient shots.  Ryan Anderson may lead the NBA in three-point attempts but he is not a chucker because he makes almost 40% of them and ranks in the top fifteen in TS% and eFG%.  Brandon Jennings, who is second in three point attempts, is a chucker because he takes a lot of threes despite making only 32.9% of them.

So, how often does a young chucker who can score 20ppg mature into a smart offensive player with good shot selection?  I ask because I wonder if it is a good idea to acquire such a player under the assumption that you can get teach him to control his urges.

[Chris]

I think this is tough to generalize about, because so much of it depends on the environment.  Now, there may be a point of no return where a guy can't really stop being a chucker, but a lot of these guys are "made" out of necessity.

Brandon Jennings for example has spent the majority of his NBA career on a team with no other real offensive options.  The only other above average (or heck, even average) offensive player on the team the last few years was Bogut, and he has been injured half the time.  The rest of the guys were terrible offensive players.

Now, things are changing, with Ilyasova emerging and Ellis joining the team, that Jennings has some other options.  And it will be interesting to see how he adapts.  But I think he was doing exactly what the coach wanted him to for much of his first two seasons.

Another interesting case of this is Austin Rivers.  Is he a chucker, or was he playing a role at Duke?  Duke was very thin with offensive talent last year, and really needed someone who could create and make shots.  And that is what Rivers could do.  So, coach K gave him that role, and essentially gave him the green light.  With this role, he ended up shooting a relatively low percentage, and has gotten a reputation as a chucker.  But the question is, had he not been taking those shots, who would they have gone to, and how much better percentage would they have been?

[guava_wrench]

Interesting question.

[the_Bird]

Pierce was headed down "Chucker Highway" for a while earlier in his career.  Look at his numbers in '02-'03 and '03-'04; taking nearly twenty shots, hitting about 40% of them, 30% from deep but taking about six 3's per game. 

Again, though, that was partially system (O'bie's love of the long ball), partially that was the relative dearth of talent around him, and partially that was immaturity (which I think Pierce would fess up to).

But, Pierce reinvented himself as an extremely efficient offensive player, still scoring at a high level but doing it on many fewer shot attempts, and shooting at a very high percentage. 

Pierce grew up, but for a while he looked like he might be headed down the same path as Antoine.

[RyNye]

Remember when the Wizards beat OKC? Don't worry about the Toronto loss.

[Lucky17]

Chris makes an excellent point. Chuckers are certainly born, but they can also be made.

I'm guessing this question was prompted by the Josh Smith thread?

[pearljammer10]

Chris makes an excellent point. Chuckers are certainly born, but they can also be made.

I'm guessing this question was prompted by the Josh Smith thread?

First thing I thought of when I read the title... Smith.

[Celtics4ever]

 With a coach they respect and some others to get them better shots, I think Smith could improve.   He is not consistent in his role which should be to board and score.   All too often he gets the same disease that plagues us which is jumpshotitis.

[LarBrd33]

Pierce was headed down "Chucker Highway" for a while earlier in his career.  Look at his numbers in '02-'03 and '03-'04; taking nearly twenty shots, hitting about 40% of them, 30% from deep but taking about six 3's per game. 

Again, though, that was partially system (O'bie's love of the long ball), partially that was the relative dearth of talent around him, and partially that was immaturity (which I think Pierce would fess up to).

But, Pierce reinvented himself as an extremely efficient offensive player, still scoring at a high level but doing it on many fewer shot attempts, and shooting at a very high percentage. 

Pierce grew up, but for a while he looked like he might be headed down the same path as Antoine.

this

[LooseCannon]

I'm guessing this question was prompted by the Josh Smith thread?

Yeah, but I'm also thinking ahead to the draft.  I also hate it when people propose the Celtics go out and get a one-dimensional, low-efficiency volume scorer for the bench.  I don't hate that the Celtics are a jump-shooting team, but I don't want Ainge to acquire bad jump shooters.

We could guess that sometimes chuckers are made by environment/coaching, but are there really that many examples of guys who used to hoist up a ton of bad shots but got better when they were put in a better situation?