"analytics" has been pretty misapplied by a lot of the NBA community *in my opinion*. it has come to be associated with simply the conclusion of "just shoot more 3s" so everyone added a 3 into their bag. people skip over how the conclusion was reached and it's not a one size fits all thing. it's basically the concept of "min/max" and game theory.
Applying it to basketball (using basketball reference shot tracker, classifying midrange as 16ft to the 3pt line, and using career stats):
Player A shoots 41.7% from midrange. he takes 100 shots = he scores 83.4 points. regarded as a solid role player. mid range was his shot.
Player B shoots 46.2% from midrange. he takes 100 shots = he scores 92.4 points. elite midrange shooter.
Player C shoots 30.8% from 3. he takes 100 shots = he scores 92.4 points. statistically tied for 3rd worst 3pt shooter this year (doesn't qualify b/c volume)
Because 3 is just worth more, being an awful 3 point shooter nets the same amount of points as an elite guy.
Player A is
Player B is
Player C is
all that to say: I don't think players now fully develop all around games. 3s have so much more value that players gravitate towards that. The evolution of NBA bigs has shifted from unskilled big men to smaller bigs who could shoot and guard more positions. As the bigs have got smaller, they prioritize shooting over posting. I think we'll see a shift where bigs can still shoot, but will be viable enough to punish a switching guard on the block.
AD hasn't developed a postgame. it isn't a strength of his. nba's play type tracking shows AD post ups generate .91 PPP. It shows KAT at .95.
The conclusion shouldn't be, but often is, that post ups are "bad shots". The conclusion, imo, should be that AD isn't a great postup player. Embiid postups generate 1.12 PPP.
The lakers force fed AD on the block last night, even though numbers show he isn't a dominant post up player, and played right into the rockets hand.