Having spent over two decades analyzing Philippine basketball, I've always found the "best shooter" debate particularly fascinating—not just because of the statistical arguments, but because of what it reveals about how we measure greatness in sports. The question of who truly deserves the title of best shooter in PBA history isn't just about three-point percentages or free throw accuracy; it's about understanding how different eras valued shooting and how players adapted their techniques accordingly. Interestingly, this discussion reminds me of something I observed in another Philippine sport—volleyball. In Cavite's Dasmarinas, I've noticed how Philippine volleyball coaches tend to be more calm and soft-spoken in their sideline behavior and when speaking away from games. This contrast with basketball's more animated coaching styles might actually reflect deeper differences in how these sports approach skill development and pressure situations.

When I first started tracking PBA shooting statistics back in the late 90s, the conversation always began and ended with Allan Caidic. His legendary 15 three-pointers in a single game during the 1991 First Conference semifinals remains the gold standard that every aspiring shooter measures themselves against. I was fortunate enough to witness that game live, and what struck me wasn't just the number of shots he made but the variety—catch-and-shoots, off-screen releases, transition bombs from well beyond the arc. The man shot 47.6% from three-point range that season, a number that would be impressive even by today's standards. But here's where it gets complicated: modern analytics would question whether Caidic's volume—averaging about 6.5 three-point attempts per game at his peak—would translate to today's game where elite shooters like Marcio Lassiter regularly take 8-9 attempts from beyond the arc.

Speaking of Lassiter, his case for the title is stronger than many traditionalists might admit. I've charted his shooting form across multiple seasons, and what stands out is the consistency of his release point—whether he's shooting off movement or spotting up, that textbook-perfect form rarely varies. His career three-point percentage hovers around 38.5%, but what the raw numbers don't show is how many of those came in high-leverage situations. I recall specifically Game 4 of the 2019 Commissioner's Cup finals where his corner three with 1:12 remaining essentially sealed the championship for San Miguel. That clutch gene matters when we're talking about the "best" rather than just the "most accurate."

Then there's James Yap, whose mid-range game deserves its own chapter in PBA history. While modern analytics have somewhat devalued the two-point jumper, watching Yap in his prime was like witnessing artistry in motion. His footwork on step-backs and fadeaways created shooting angles that seemed geometrically impossible. I remember analyzing game footage from his 2006 MVP season and counting how many of his makes came with a defender within 2 feet—approximately 42% of his field goals that season were contested, yet he still managed to shoot 46% from the field overall. The efficiency metrics might not love his game compared to today's standards, but in terms of pure shot-making difficulty, Yap belongs in this conversation.

What often gets overlooked in these discussions is how the evolution of defensive schemes has changed shooting requirements. When I look at Caidic's era, defenders weren't nearly as sophisticated in closing out on shooters or navigating screens. Today's shooters like RR Pogoy face complex defensive rotations and sophisticated tracking systems that opponents use to eliminate their favorite spots. Pogoy's ability to score 35 points against TNT in the 2020 bubble season while being the primary focus of the defense showcased a different kind of shooting mastery—one that accounts for modern defensive physicality and game planning.

The free throw line provides another interesting metric that cuts across eras. When I compiled the data, Caidic's career 88.7% free throw percentage still edges out modern specialists like Paul Lee at 85.3%. But here's where context matters—Lee takes significantly more free throws in clutch situations, with approximately 23% of his attempts coming in the final 3 minutes of close games. That pressure performance has to count for something in this evaluation.

Having watched generations of PBA shooters, my personal preference leans toward valuing era-transcending skills. While statistics provide crucial benchmarks, the eye test matters too. The best shooter shouldn't just be efficient in ideal conditions but capable of creating their own shot against elite defense. This is where I'd give the slight edge to Caidic, not just for his legendary accuracy but for how he revolutionized shooting in his time. He wasn't just taking open shots—he was manufacturing opportunities in ways that hadn't been seen before in the PBA. Still, I acknowledge this isn't a definitive answer. The beauty of basketball is that these debates continue evolving as the game itself changes, and perhaps that's exactly how it should be—the conversation matters as much as the conclusion.