Mandatory Credit: Tommy Gilligan-USA TODAY Sports

John Bauman is the editor of Keeping It Heel, a blog on the FanSided network that covers the North Carolina Tar Heels. You can find him on Twitter on both @KeepingItHeel and @bauman_john.

In my last article, I looked at the play of Andrew Wiggins and Nik Stauskas, two top 10 picks from 2014 who had vastly different rookie seasons. While Wiggins expanded his game with the Timberwolves and won the Rookie of the Year award, Stauskas struggled to adjust to the pro game and left much to be desired.

Now it’s time to look at two more rookies, ones who had different starts but similar results by the season’s end: Marcus Smart and Jordan Clarkson.

Smart was the sixth overall pick in the 2014 NBA Draft to the Boston Celtics. He played in 67 games — starting in 33 of them — averaged 7.8 points on 36.7 percent shooting, and finished fifth in Rookie of the Year voting. Clarkson finished two spots behind Smart in the award race, but was drafted 40 spots later. Clarkson played in 59 games — started in 38 of them — and averaged 11.9 points on 44.8 percent shooting.

Comparing their shot charts from their last year in college to their shot charts from their first year in the NBA gives a lot of insight on from where these two players started, how they improved and how they can grow moving forward.

***

Jordan Clarkson played three years of college basketball, starting for two years at Tulsa before finishing up his career at Missouri in 2013-14. Clarkson wasn’t a highly rated recruit coming out of high school — ESPN rated him as the 75th shooting guard in the Class of 2010, behind both familiar and unfamiliar names like Will Barton (1st), Dion Waiters (2nd), Tim Hardaway Jr. (28th), and Langston Galloway (48th).

Clarkson quickly excelled at Tulsa, scoring 16.5 points per game by the culmination of his sophomore season, and looked to transfer to a bigger school. That’s when he signed on to play for Missouri’s Frank Haith.

At Mizzou, Clarkson continued to improve upon his numbers that he put up at Tulsa. The shifty guard averaged 17.5 points and 3.4 assists per game and his stock just enough that he decided to enter into the NBA Draft as a projected late first round pick.

Here is Clarkson’s shot chart from his time at Missouri.

As you can see, Clarkson scored 17 points per game not with efficiency but with volume. He struggled from behind the 3-point line, shooting a dismal 28 percent. Clarkson was especially bad from the left wing, where he converted on 18 percent of shots.

The Lakers rookie also failed to finish at the rim with consistency. Even so, Clarkson scored 222 points at the rim — an incredibly high number for a guard. For comparison’s sake, that is six more points than Frank Kaminsky scored in that area in the 2013-14 season.

Now take a look at Clarkson’s shot chart from his first year in the NBA.

That shot chart looks completely different than his Mizzou one, and is a testament to the strides he made during his first year in the NBA. While Clarkson improved in a few key areas, no development was more integral to his ascent up the rookie rankings than his consistent mid-range game.

Notice how Clarkson uses the screen, takes the easy 15-footer and drains it at the end of the shot clock. That is a valuable NBA-level shot that frankly wasn’t there consistently for him in college.

Clarkson sprinkled in some efficient shooting at the left elbow, too, but the volume wasn’t consistent enough for him to count on it. Nevertheless, it’s a major positive for Laker fans that he was able to add that shot to his arsenal.

Clarkson was also able to finish at the rim in his first season in the NBA. Again, 55 percent leaves room for improvement, but Clarkson held his own and was able to attack the basket at a high rate, improving as the season went along.

His 3-point game still needs work, however. Clarkson shot 31.4 percent from behind the line, an improvement on his percentage from Missouri, but still a ways away from where he wants to be. He needs to improve especially on the left wing, where he struggled both in college and in the pros.

***

Smart followed a different path to NBA success. He was a talented recruit coming out of high school. He was the No. 1 ranked shooting guard in the Class of 2012 and picked Oklahoma State over North Carolina, Texas and Oklahoma.

Smart was a star both his years at Oklahoma State. His freshman season, he was the USBWA Freshman of the Year and an All-American. He averaged 16.6 points and 4.5 assists in his 64 games at Stillwater and was a projected lottery pick. The Celtics took him one pick after Dante Exum in the 2014 Draft.

Check out Smart’s shot chart in college.

The first thing that stands out is Smart’s 68 percent shooting at the rim. He was able to use his strength and quickness to be efficient at the rim in college compared to his counterparts. However, Smart struggled from beyond the 3-point arc, with a lot of blue hues showing up, especially from the right side and from the corners. There also isn’t a lot of volume or efficiency in the midrange area.

Another big part of Smart’s offensive game is getting to the line. The shooting guard attempted eight free throws per game in college (something that isn’t reflected on his shot chart) and flaunted the strength and ability necessarily to take on a lead role for the Cowboys.

Now take a look at how Smart this past season with the Celtics.

Smart made meaningful improvements to his 3-point shot with the Celtics, as Brad Stevens worked hard to prevent him from being a liability on the perimeter. He shot 33.5 percent from behind the arc, improving significantly on the left side of the 3-point line. Given that he was a 29.5 percent shooter from three in college, that’s an encouraging development for both Smart and the Celtics.

Smart cut a lot of the midrange shots out of his game, too. Jordan Clarkson cultivated his midrange game, while Smart has only a few light blue dots sprinkled throughout the midrange area. Why the two players diverged in this area has to do a lot with the teams they played for. Clarkson had more of a margin of error to play with on a bad Lakers team, while Smart was playing for the playoff-bound Celtics and didn’t have as many opportunities to experiment.

Smart also regressed slightly at the rim. He still scored many points, but his shooting dipped to 50 percent. It’s certainly an area where the guard can improve in year two with Boston.

***

The best way to sum up the difference in the two charts is that Smart went from scoring with efficiency in college to scoring with volume in the NBA. At Oklahoma, he was elite around the rim and at the line. With the Celtics, he saw his efficiency behind the arc drop while taking more shots from deep.

Clarkson took the opposite path, growing more efficient in the NBA while also growing more selective with his shots, especially around the rim and behind the arc. His midrange game became much more potent with the Lakers while becoming more selective with his shots at the rim.

The challenge for these two guards as they try to take that next step forward in the NBA is to be able to combine efficiency and volume to become smarter scorers. Chris Paul is a good example to look up to. The Clippers star eats up possessions, but he is also highly efficient from both behind the arc and at the elbows.

Clarkson needs to continue to improve his midrange game and Smart his 3-point shooting if they have hopes of developing offense games that mirror those of the NBA’s best point guards.

All shot charts from shotanalytics.com