Lonzo Ball will forever take the crown of most controversial, but De’Aaron Fox might be the second most divisive prospect in this year’s draft class. Some feel passionately that he is a terrible shooter who is likely to suck at NBA offense like Michael Carter-Williams, Rajon Rondo, or Emmanuel Mudiay. Others are assured of the fact that Fox is a special player with star upside because of his athleticism.

Nearly all of the debate around Fox centers around how good or bad his offense will be. His defense matters too, but is far less controversial. He came into the year with a pretty great defensive reputation, but it became obvious quickly that reputation was overblown. He has Russell Westbrook-syndrome of being so active that he jumps himself out of position, and his skinny frame hurts him in a variety of situations.

Still, he has great quickness and good length for the position. He’s not going to be a plus, but he’s not going to be super damaging and as he gains strength and maturity he could be an approximately +0 guy.

His offense is a little trickier to figure out. Before we can properly analyze his offensive future, there are two myths going around about Fox that are worth dispelling.

Point guards need to be able to shoot to succeed on the offensive end

There have been a string of recent point guard prospects whose big question mark was shooting who have been unmitigated disasters on the offensive end. Emmanuel Mudiay, Kris Dunn, Marcus Smart, Elfrid Payton, and Michael-Carter Williams are the most frequently cited examples against Fox. These are the most recent non-shooting point guards to enter the draft, but they are not the only ones ever.

It is simply a fallacy to suggest that point guards cannot succeed on offense in this day and age without a successful three-point shot. John Wall, Russell Westbrook, and Ricky Rubio have been consistently good (to great) offensive players without a good outside shot, and Kemba Walker, Rajon Rondo, and Derrick Rose are just some of many players who have delivered good offensive seasons without shooting well from beyond the arc.

If we compare the numbers between the former group of players and the latter the we see the difference in their offensive success does not come from different level of shooting ability.

Career numbers used if a specific year is not specified — “bad” on the left, “good” on the right

Yes, the percentages of the group on the left are slightly worse than those on the right. Yet, they are not significantly so (2–3%), and more importantly, the players on the left are at a much earlier stage in their shooting development than those on the right. Russell Westbrook only shot 28.9% from three across his first four seasons, John Wall 24.3% during his first three. The logical conclusion is that it is something other than their shooting ability that separates these players, and that point guards certainly can succeed offensively without a three-point shot.

Now, the obvious counterargument is that it is not fair to compare Fox to the above group. Westbrook, Wall, and Rose have size and power to their games that Fox does not, and Rondo and Rubio can pass in a way Fox cannot. That’s not wrong per say, but Fox is an elite athlete in his own right (quickness and leaping instead of speed and explosion), and his game and build are just as different from Payton/Smart/Dunn/MCW/Mudiay as they’re from the above cohort.

Fox isn’t necessarily going to succeed because of the success of Wall, etc, but he also isn’t necessarily going to fail because of the shortcomings of Mudiay, etc. The point is, it is very reasonable to suggest that Fox could be an elite offensive player while still shooting somewhere between 29–33% from three.

2. Fox is an outlier level-bad shooter with no chance of improvement

One response to the above point is that Fox is a completely outlier bad shooter and will never even be able to get to that 29–33% threshold. This argument makes even less sense. Yes, Fox shooting 24.6% on only 69 total attempts is really bad. He’s likely to be a bad shooter for his whole career. However, he has enough positive indicators that there’s real reason to believe his 3P% alone is worse than his true shooting ability due to variance. Or at the very least that he’s quite capable of improving to the 29–33% range.

For starters, Fox’s other shooting numbers are much more average than they are terrible. I don’t have access to synergy but there are still a few other numbers we can look at as indicators of his shooting ability.

2PTJ #s via hoop-math

Fox’s volume of two-point jumpers and three-pointers in EYBL are both larger than his three-point volume from this season, and both numbers are average, not bad (EYBL shooting numbers are generally lower). Fox’s free-throw shooting across both competitions is definitely below-average, but again, nowhere near outlier bad.

Thinking about things from a more traditional scouting perspective, Fox also comes out looking better. His form is a bit hitch-y but far more clean than someone like Josh Jackson’s, and his fluidity and (foolhardy) confidence shooting off-the-dribble is apparent. Also, there is a real argument to be made that many of Fox’s shooting woes stemmed from his lack of strength, and he should improve naturally with time. Kaiser Lindeman did a great job of outlining this argument in more detail here.

The only numbers that stand out as bad in Fox’s shooting profile are his three-point volume and percentage. He only made 17 threes on the season and he shot 24.6%. Yet still, we can find some extraordinarily positive examples just looking at guys with similar numbers.

Kyle Lowry made only 13 threes across two seasons of college play while shooting < 30% from three and <70% from the line his freshman year. Mike Conley made 21 threes at a 30.4% clip while shooting 69.4% from the line. As a freshman, Kemba Walker shot 27.1% from three and 71.5% on free throws while only making 13 threes. Significantly, these guys have all turned into excellent NBA three-point shooters, and there are many more examples in NCAA — NBA history.

Another reason for Fox’s low-volume that doesn’t get bandied around enough is Calipari’s antiquated approach to the game. Cal has encouraged many of his prospects in the past to eschew three-point shots in favor of the mid-range, and the same trend shows up in Fox’s numbers.

If Fox were to make a Lowry/Conley-esque leap in shooting ability it is hard to see him not being wildly successful on the offensive end. There are very few guards in the league that match his level of quickness, leaping ability, and size. When you add in smooth footwork and okay vision Fox could easily be one of the more dynamic guards in the league.

That he was so successful at getting to the rim and scoring despite defenses going under every single screen against him and playing off him speaks to his massive potential. The UCLA game in many ways showed off what type of player Fox could be with a respectable jumper. UCLA stupidly trailed him around screens, and he proceeded to torch them to the tune of 38 points.

It’s not a stretch to say Fox could be a +5 or better player on the offensive end with massive shooting improvement. Whether Fox’s ultimate upside is equal to, greater than, or slightly less than Lonzo Ball and Markelle Fultz’s offensive upside is hard to say because we haven’t seen enough of Fox with defenses guarding him like he can shoot. Fox is certainly a worse creator for his teammates than either guy, but his speed and finishing combo is the best of the group. The fact that it is even a discussion as to who has the highest offensive upside is a huge point in Fox’s favor, and suggests there’s a real argument for him at #3 overall.

Still, Fox’s shooting developing at an outlier rate cannot be expected. Upside is a huge part of draft rankings, but it is not the only part. It is also important to evaluate Fox’s offense if he only were to develop into the 29–33% range that is to be expected. So, with all that in mind, what is a realistic outcome for Fox’s offense?

Fox’s combination of quickness and leaping is nearly unheard of. Bigger guys like Wall and Westbrook have more speed and explosion but a little less quicks and ability to slither around the defense. Smaller guys with Fox’s ability to get into the lane like Kemba or Conley aren’t scorers at the rim like him.

To get an idea of how unique Fox’s combination of attacking and finishing skills are, I compared Fox’s unassisted half-court at rim field goal attempts per 40 and his FG% in such situations with every other point guard who has been drafted since 2012 (when the always great Hoop-Math’s database came into existence).

A brief note on methodology: Hoop-Math doesn’t present the data in the raw so I made the assumptions that a) all put-back field goals come in the half-court and b) players shoot 100% on assisted shots at the rim. Neither of these are likely completely true but they should do a much better job of painting a prospects unassisted creation than leaving them in.