That's your whole problem. Your search isn't relevent. There are a ton of guys just outside of your "specifications" that are superior to Webster, the difference being, they didn't take so many shots to get to where they are at, because they are much more efficient at 3 point shooting. Here are some examples:
Quentin Richardson (only had made 39 3's.) Far superior stats. He was a free agent this summer.
So he hasn't made as many as Webster. You'd think a "pure shooter" would be taking more than our part-time starting SF, right? (You see? That "outlier" wasn't relevant, either. Or was it? why is your number of 39 "far superior"?) Aside from the fact that Q-Rich, no matter how efficient he was or wasn't, hasn't made as many as our scrub part-time starter. Which was a premise of the original stat sort.
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/quentin_richardson/career_stats.html
Ryan Anderson. Didn't show up because he has only made 38 3's as a reserve in reserve minutes. Was traded by NJ as a "Throw in".
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ryan_anderson/index.html
I would suggest you look at your query, and refine it. It is not realistic.
I was very straightforward with the assumptions in the initial post, which took Martell's numbers, added a fudge factor to make it "40" instead of "42" (since that was more "even", which
is bullpucky, but whatever) and 35% instead of 35.8%. I was told not that the assumptions were faulty, or that they were too limited or whatever (all valid concerns), but that it was "bullpucky" b/c Martell's 99th in percentage or whatever.
Here they are again, so you don't have to scroll back.
1) The shooter has to be at least as prolific as Martell, since he doesn't get a ton of shots for our team but still is relied upon to make them when he shoots. Therefore, no guys who are 1-1 this year at 100%.
2) The shooter has to be at least as accurate as Martell, since it doesn't make sense when calling him "not a pure shooter" to say that a guy shooting worse than he is is one.
So you believe Ryan Anderson and Q-Rich are pure shooters? Why do you include them in your sample at 39 and 38? What about someone who's shot 36? Or 32? Or 12? Or 1? Where's your line?
I drew mine arbitrarily at Webster's numbers. It's not my fault they don't meet with anyone's perceptions. It is "realistic", since it's "factual" and "backed up by statistics". If you feel other qualifiers need to be on there, so be it. Nik's very reasonable post that he used 2 attempts per game is a good one. You could ask "why 2 3PA/g?". But that's where he drew his line. I ask again, where's yours?
My "line" wasn't a normalization of attempts per game. It was a "line" of shooters who've made more than Webster at a higher percentage than Webster. Since the original question that drove this post was "how many lights-out shooters are there in the NBA, if Paxil doesn't think Webs is or ever will be one", I looked at who made more and at a better percentage than Webster. There are 21 of those in the league. That is realistic, factual, statistical, however you want to say it. If you want to have a different definition of "pure" or "lights-out" shooter, go for it. If you want to say that someone who attempts 2 three's a game is a pure shooter, have at it. But that becomes your research project. Not mine.
