Jesus christ.
The OP asks 'who is he NHL's Josh Smith' under the wrong assumption that he is a decent player with bad advanced stats when the only thing you need is a shot chart to realize dude shoots and can't score from outside the paint yet still chucks up long 2s and 3s.
He is literally the opposite of missing every shot you take. He misses every shot he takes is the entire story.
Well, your last two lines contradict each other, but my point flew ten feet over your head. Basketball advanced metrics are about shooting efficiency, whereas hockey advanced statistics are about shooting volume, so the ways in which players may put up better traditional numbers than advanced numbers are the inverse of each other. While the OP was wrong to imply that Josh Smith's traditional numbers are good, 13 points per game for a starter are basically as bad as his advanced numbers, what I was saying was that people in this thread were arguing about playing style, which is an inane comparison between sports because they're strategically very dissimilar (the old adage "it's never a bad play to shoot" doesn't work in basketball), when the question explicitly stated in the OP was "who has traditional numbers (goals, assists, points) that look strong with analyitcs (Corsi, Fenwick) that are not." It's the difference between a specific statistical phenomenon which exists in every sport and a scouting report.
EDIT: basically, this thread took the question "who is like Josh Smith in that he has this statistical discrepancy" and made it "who is like Josh Smith?" and there being no 6'9" black professional basketball players from Georgia, the question seems even more immaterial. The response to this has been like seeing "who is most like Rudy Giuliani in terms of hawkish judicial policy" and then receiving a list of thrice-married Roman Catholics.