The shooting rate is 40%, is this the three-point version of Towns or Markkanen? Another full-scoring operation of the Lakers is here?

Season 24-25, Alexander led the scoring list with an average of 32.7 points per game. In the big player scoring list, Jokic led the lead with an average of 29.6 points per game. Where is the big three-point list?

Wenban Yama led the way with 3.1 three-pointers per game, followed by Markkanen's 2.9 goals. In terms of shooting percentage, among the big players who made at least 200 three-point shots, Towns led by 42%, followed by Jokic's 41.7%.

With the premise that Love Travel is about to retire, it can be seen that Towns and Markkanen are indeed the top three-pointers in the league today. Regarding the three-pointers of the two, let’s take a look at the comparison of the data in the two sets:

career comparison

1. In the 645 games so far, Towns made a total of 2,790 three-pointers, hit 1,117 goals, and a shooting rate of 40%;

2. In the 450 games so far, Markanen made a total of 3,075 three-pointers, hit 1,142 goals, and a shooting rate of 37.1%.

It can be seen that the two have good three-point stability.

Comparison

1. When Towns was on the court, the Knicks scored 119.4 points in a hundred rounds, the team ranked first; when not on the court, the team scored 109.6 points in a hundred rounds, second only to Bridges' 109.4 points; when Markanen was on the court, the Jazz scored 111.4 points in a hundred rounds, the team scored 108.1 points in a hundred rounds, second only to Sexton's 107.8 points.

It can be seen that the two excellent three-pointers not only have the team's main strength, but also the space attributes can also open up space for teammates and promote the improvement of ending efficiency.

Downs, the Lakers have no bargaining chips, but considering the Jazz's reconstruction attributes, Markkanen is still a little bit possible. However, the Lakers have a "better choice" at this stage.

According to Lakers Anthony F. Irwin, the team is paying close attention to Vucevic, who has a one-year and $21 million contract. Considering that the Bulls are rebuilding the team, it is highly likely that the Bulls have the possibility of buying out Vucevic.

Explanation point: three-point shooting rate. Vucevic's three-point rate in the 24-25 season was 40%, and when the defender was in the open position above 6 feet, the three-point rate rose to 41%. Just for the vacant three-point rate, as a comparison:

1, Myers Turner value is 43%;

2, Naz Reed value is 40%;

3, Porzingis value is 42%.

It can be said that Vucevic has a top three-point finish in the same position. Considering the proportion of 30.8% and 30.9% three-point shootings in the past two quarters, this is more like the three-point version of Towns or Markkanen - the same ending with three-pointers, and also has excellent efficiency. Will the

Bulls buy out Vucevic?

I think the possibility is still very high. It is very important that saving money while there is no need for a record is the top priority for the team management, and buying out can save money to a certain extent. Just as Smart and the Wizards reached a buyout, they gave up $7 million.

Are the Lakers attractive to Vucevic?

I think there is.

First, Vucevic will definitely not be the starter under the premise of Ayton, but if he is much stronger than Hayes, he will be the team's second center.

Second, the Lakers have a high exposure, which means that as long as they play well, they are relatively easy to get in the subsequent contract.

If the Lakers successfully won Vucevic, I think it would be another full-scoring operation.

First, spatial attributes. As I said just now, Vucevic is not at all inferior to Towns and others just for three points. Potentially, it has very good spatial attributes. It not only brings combat power but also provides offensive help to teammates.

Second, contract. After buying out, the basic salary contract is basically there. As for the basic salary contract, everyone signs, but Vucevic is the first point - it will be helpful to the team.

To sum up the above two points, the full score operation can be defined as a very cost-effectiveness under a spatial attribute and a basic salary contract. To take a step back, even if you are not suitable for the local situation, the basic salary contract only has little impact on the team, and it is even said that it does not.