No one's saying Rondo SHOULD be because Pekovic IS, but if there are multiple precedents (not just one) of non-shooters being good at FT's, you think they became good at shooting from that distance when not jumping (and terrible when jumping) due to uh luck? The contrast is too great to be anything other than practice/repetition.
It would be a fault in my logic if Pekovic was good at shooting from that distance in-game and I said, 'Well centers are traditionally bad a FT's and look he's good" while faulting Rondo because guards at traditonally good at FT's, but no, I'm using those two as examples to show what TWO bad in-game shooters can overcome at the line with repetition.
If you think Pekovic became that good at the FT line because uh, "good luck slid to him, and Rondo's that bad because the bad luck slid to him," then you're discounting the process of working on anything. Pekovic would shoot 10-20% from that range in-game, and then suddenly 80% when he doesn't jump from that range because of what?
I can bring up other examples to show you that multiple precedents doesn't equate to an outlier like whatever you're going on about
By your logic, if everyone were to put the work in they would all be close to steph curry good from 3.
No one's alluding to this type of logic but you.