Think Stauskas would be on this list if he plays 4 years? His first two years were as good as others on it.
Best Pure Shooter This Century
- Thread starter dukedevilz
- Start date
Think Stauskas would be on this list if he plays 4 years? His first two years were as good as others on it.
I'd be okay with him being in the top 10 if he maintained those averages. 44% is legit. I think my initial 10 is flawed a bit. I'll admit that.
First of all, you gonna try to defend your title in the college basketball draft? I've posted a draft order, but no picks have been taken as of yet. So, there's still time to squeeze you in.
If you include NBA shooting, then yes, Steph wins. No doubt. But, this is simply for the time spent in college.
FWIW, NCAA released an article that has a 3-point index for best shooters this century. Had Stephen Curry played one more year with his same averages, he would have finished second. Here was the 3-point index calculation:
Here are the top 10 shooters from this write-up:
1 Jaycee Carroll Utah State 369 0.4653
2 Steve Novak Marquette 354 0.4609
3 Kyle Korver Creighton 371 0.453
4 Stephen Sir Northern Arizona 323 0.4688
5 Travis Bader Oakland 504 0.4045
6 Salim Stoudamire Arizona 342 0.4578
7 Micah Mason Duquesne 311 0.4635
8 Chris Lofton Tennessee 431 0.4221
9 Fletcher Magee Wofford 351 0.4432
10 J.J. Redick Duke 457 0.4059
I remember Carroll a little bit. I want to say he played for FC Barcelona alongside Terence Morris.
People using "it ain't close" on things that are objectively close are the worst.
When the OP said "shooter", he was speaking in terms of shooting a basketball..
Not bourbon.Winking
Homer pick:
Jordan Hulls. He shot 44% for his career; 49% as a junior. Dude was cold-blooded. Great shooter. One of the best to ever lace'em up at Indiana.
Jordan Hulls. He shot 44% for his career; 49% as a junior. Dude was cold-blooded. Great shooter. One of the best to ever lace'em up at Indiana.
Totally. Check out post #7220 in the Betsy Ross thread. That guy sure is a loser.
People that write a post number instead of actually linking the post are the worst
Hahaha, I thought about linking it "for the lazy", but thought, "what's the fun in that?"
There is a difference between someone saying they like something more “and it isn’t close” and saying that objectively something isn’t close that is.
But I’ve got a college basketball draft to study for so let’s not go down this semantics rabbit hole.
But I’ve got a college basketball draft to study for so let’s not go down this semantics rabbit hole.
Similar threads
