Wizards are banking on multiple players improving as three-point shooters. What are the odds?

Perhaps the biggest if only in discussing NBA players is completed with the phrase, he could shoot. As in, “He’d be an All-Star if only he could shoot 35% from three-point range.”

The Wizards are well-stocked with this type of player, including Bilal Coulibaly, Alex Sarr, Kyshawn George, Bub Carrington, Will Riley, Dillon Jones, Malaki Branham, and Jamir Watkins. Obviously, the “All-Star” portion of that sentence would apply to only a few of these guys — that’s just an example of the statement’s genre. The key part is to the question about shooting and to what extent improvement is realistic.

A review of various studies on three-point shooting is sobering because for subpar shooters early in their careers improvement tends to be modest, slow, and erratic.

Let’s take that last point first. Unlike their brethren in other sports, NBA players are remarkably consistent year to year. Once they’re established and through the early-career improvement, what they do on a per possession basis doesn’t vary a whole lot. Various studies have shown that about 80% of an individual player’s performance can be explained by his previous season’s performance. That percentage is vastly lower for Major League Baseball or National Football League players.

One exception? Three-point shooting. Shooting skill matters, of course, but shooting percentages swing significantly year to year, even for players believed to be good shooters.

For example, look at the season-to-season variance in Trae Young’s shooting by year of his career:

1. 32.4%
2. 36.1%
3. 34.3%
4. 38.2%
5. 33.5%
6. 37.3%
7. 34.0%

His career average is 35.2%, which is a) a bit below the NBA average, b) 2.8% better than year one, c) exhibits the year-to-year variability, and d) represents a bigger improvement than various forecasting methods would have predicted.

That 2.8% is about double the typical improvement for a young player who enters the NBA with a subpar long-range shooting percentage. In Young’s case, the question of how good a shooter he might be complicated by his lack of size, defensive attention, and shot selection, but these are factors present for all players to some degree.

The pattern Washington would love — and that I think many fans envision — is more like Otto Porter’s. During the former Wizards’ first two seasons, he shot 39-125 from deep — just 31.2%. His percentage leapt to 36.7% in season three. That was followed by three consecutive seasons where he hit at least 40%, including 43.4% in his fourth season and 44.1% in year five. After that ignominious start, his career three-point percentage was 39.7%.

Unfortunately, Porter’s shooting progression is abnormal. Research suggests that while most guys improve their shooting a little over the course of their careers, only about a third increase their three-point shooting by three points or more.

So, let’s say Coulibaly falls into that third who makes a 3% or more leap. Through two seasons, he’s shooting 31.1%. He regressed from 34.6% as a rookie to just 28.1% last year. This suggests he might end up a 34-35% three-point shooter, if the Wizards are fortunate enough for him to fall into the group of players making the biggest improvements.

Only about 1-in-10 improved their three-point shooting by at least 5%.

Most players improve modestly — around 1.5% points.

Now, we can all cite players who did improve — Kawhi Leonard, Tony Parker (they had the same shooting coach), Herb Jones, Brook Lopez, Porter, Al Horford, Blake Griffin, Lonzo Ball, Tyrese Maxey quickly spring to mind. It’s possible for players to significantly improve — it’s just relatively rare.

Conversations with scouts and developmental coaches pinpoint key factors that influence whether and how much NBA players improve their shooting.

• Practice — The way to get better at shooting is the same as developing any other skill. There’s no substitute for deliberate, thoughtful, conscious repetition of the shooting motion — especially at game speed when possible.
• Coaching — By the time even the youngest prospects enter the NBA, they’ve often developed bad shooting habits. This isn’t about becoming a form Nazi — there’s a long history of great shooters with unorthodox form — it’s often the skilled eye of an expert who can identify and tweak small flaws that undermine a player’s accuracy.
• Conditioning — This one isn’t about being “in shape” but rather is a reflection of the reality that young men will add strength as they physically mature. Guys who entered the NBA as teens (Coulibaly, Sarr, Carrington) will get stronger in the years ahead, which may help them replicate their shooting form under duress and while playing heavy minutes.

There are limits, though. Among these — poor work/practice habits. Getting up a hundred shots a day in the offseason doesn’t mean much if done lackadaisically or without focus on form and success. Various development coaches tell me there’s a rule of thumb that a player’s in-game three-point shooting percentage is about half what they shoot in drills and workout sessions. That means part of purposeful work is counting the makes and misses and knowing whether a player is succeeding. Good vibes don’t count.

Another limiting factor is an inability to break bad habits. Humans often revert to what’s rote when under pressure, and NBA players are human. Once a mechanical flaw is identified, it’s essential to drill it to the point where it becomes automatic. Not everyone can achieve this level of muscle memory.

The last factor: genetics. For example, Stephen Curry was likely born with better hand-eye coordination than say Michael Ruffin. That’s not a dig at Ruffin but simply a statement of reality. Humans vary across the population in many ways based on how DNA combines.

Curry — probably the greatest shooter ever — is the rare combination of outlier genetics and outlier work ethic. Others who spring to mind include Jerry West, Ray Allen, Larry Bird, Reggie Miller, Steve Nash, Klay Thompson, Kevin Durant, Nikola Jokic, Dirk Nowitzki, etc.

Contrast with, for example, Giannis Antetokounmpo, who while blessed with size, athleticism, and phenomenal work ethic never became even a competent perimeter shooter. Or perhaps John Wall, who was an elite athlete and excellent player who never became a consistent shooter.

What does all this mean for the Wizards? First, the biggest takeaway is that no one should simply assume improvement will happen. Young players tend to get a little better at shooting, but big jumps are more rare than we’d like to think.

Second, while Will Dawkins and Brian Keefe have indicated they’re satisfied with the coaching staff’s ability to teach shooting, it’s possible the players could benefit from hiring a shooting specialist.

Third, there’s no substitute for work. In his recent media availability, Dawkins described how many players spent most of the summer in DC working out together to maximize what they call the “jump” season. Until the players take the court in actual games, fans have to hope Dawkins’ comments aren’t just the GM version of offseason workout videos.

The Wizards don’t really need any of these guys to become great shooters. But they need to be good enough to threaten the defense. That threat creates space for teammates and other avenues of attack. Being able to distort the opposing defensive scheme is essential to high-level NBA offense. Let’s see if the jump-season summer of work has given Washington’s youngsters what they need to start that process.