Mid Range game - lost art

[nelsonmuntz]

If this were true nba teams would exploit this… but outside of embiid the mid range shot isn’t even taken even when given. You can’t say the math is wrong as it’s more you don’t believe the inputs to be correct

If an open mid range shot is a worse shot than a contested 3, then why have a team play defense at all? By this logic, playing defense actually makes it a better shot.

In reality, we are still in the early days of analytics. They will start running regressions against different defenses and based on what happened immediately before and after. There is a lot to learn about what increases points per possession and what decreases points per possession. I am confident that post touches will make a comeback, while 5 out offenses will decline in prevalence.

 

[ConnEd]

3’s are a better shot than mid-range 2’s across an entire team assuming the team can make 33% of their 3’s (equivalent to 50% shooting from 2). Over large samples that will be true. But, as we’ve seen, in a given game, a team may shoot 25% from 3. Now, their 2 pt equivalent is only 37.5% shooting. In that case, it might benefit the team to take most of its shots from 2 including mid-range shots assuming it can shoot more than 37.5% on those shots.

Of course, you don’t know how you’re going to shoot for an entire game in the middle of the game. But it’s also true that shooting requires rhythm/feel. And if one or more of your 3-pt shooters doesn’t have it, one way to get it is to take (and make) easier jumpshots. Hawkins, for example, needs the confidence he gets from seeing his shot drop. I’d run plays to get him an elbow jumper or two every time he enters a game. Similarly, getting to the FT line can get you in that rhythm.

Lastly, some players may just be highly proficient mid-range shooters that defy the stats, e.g. Rip, Cole. I wouldn’t push guys like that to shoot mostly 3’s when you can count on them being extraordinarily efficient in the mid-range. And, as others have stated, there’s something to be said for making the opposition have to defend the entire court and not just the lane and the arc.

 

[olehead]

It isn't 2004. If the defense gives you a mid-range shot you take it, but it shouldn't be a part of our scheming on offense at all.



Not really. He shoots 3s and bangs under the basket primarily. His release is too low to be very consistently effective from the 3 point line.

Wait what? He's our incoming sniper I thought.

 

[Yawin4Heisman]

Mid-range j’s are just not a good shot from an EV standpoint… Period… love all the armchair experts this topic brings out who apparently know more about it than the people whose full time job it is to study this sort of stuff… (and as if the experts haven’t considered the counterarguments before… c’mon)

1) we don’t shoot mid-range j’s at a high enough % to warrant taking them… not sure why there’s a need to speculate or debate this - we have shot charts of makes/misses for every game this year. Just take a look. 2-6 from mid-range vs Nova (some of which I think came after passing up possible 3’s) vs 8-20 on 3’s

Creighton game even worse - took double digit mid-range attempts and looks like we made 2…
I’m sure there’s games which are outliers but that isn’t the point as the %’s needed long-term to make it worthwhile just aren’t there… also, you don’t get to the foul line as often (which impacts the EV and seems to have been overlooked in this chat unless I missed it) taking mid-range j’s which is another reason why teams emphasize attacking the basket when not taking 3’s

2) what’s the recruiting pitch - “hey we’re gonna teach you a skill / run an offense that no NBA GM values”… let’s leave that to Cuse with their 2-3 zone… not to mention as already mentioned it’s not a skill that’s emphasized at the high school level anymore which brings me to 3…

3) love using the examples of some of the greatest shooters / mid-range j shooters to ever play the game as evidence a mid-range j strategy can work… well aside from the fact none currently play for us, there will be less and less of those guys in the future cause of what players are taught in HS so good luck building a team around the concept nowadays

 

[Hoophound]

Polley/Hawkins/Martin should flash to the follow line for an easy jumper or quick pass down low now and then. We need some way to offset our inability to penetrate with our guards. Polley in particular, at 6’9”, may find some easy buckets there.

 

[dennismenace]

If Ray Allen and Rip Hamilton could do it, why not Andre Jackson?

Good question. He appears to have the work effort. But his recruiting at the next level will be based on 3's and dunks, not mid-range. He should start with catch and shoot threes and then off screens and step backs. That and handle tightening (he is a former guard growing up) and dunks or any other way to finish at the rim. But there is value to the two pointer (see Husky 429 post above/below).

"Durant. Durants #s from mid-range breaks all the stat nerds systems."

BTW, Hamilton was .346 from three as a pro.

It is a matter of what takes priorities in terms of his time.
Thank God AJ and Sanogo have great work ethics as well as natural talent.
This gives the coaching staff all they need to help develop these guys.

 

[husky429]

Wait what? He's our incoming sniper I thought.

I mean mid-range. He's a solid 3 point shooter. Mid-range isn't a part of his game

 

[mauconnfan]

Anyone remember versus Nova as they were somewhat climbing back late, AJ gets a pass wide open at the foul line and wanted nothing to do with the shot. That’s scary! I mean wide open, time to think.

 

[Conndog]

But, doesn't it also depend on how well you shoot your 3-pt shots? I mean, if you only shoot 20% say but are pretty good in the 2-pt range, at some point it makes sense to take the 2 pt mid-range shot. Also, maybe there is more of a chance to get the rebound if you miss? And wouldn't having an effective mid-range shot make defense have to honor it which could create opportunities for the 3?

 

[polycom]

If an open mid range shot is a worse shot than a contested 3, then why have a team play defense at all? By this logic, playing defense actually makes it a better shot.

In reality, we are still in the early days of analytics. They will start running regressions against different defenses and based on what happened immediately before and after. There is a lot to learn about what increases points per possession and what decreases points per possession. I am confident that post touches will make a comeback, while 5 out offenses will decline in prevalence.

It's more about EV than anything. If players make open mid-range shots at x% and make contested 3s at X+1% then the contested 3 is a better shot because of EV. We aren't in the early days of math...Analytics is a silly word for what they are using math for in sports. Maybe they have the variables wrong but the math isn't new.

 

[dtrumpet]

Its probably an outlier, but there was a lot of midrange game last night in Kansas/Texas. Not long 2's, but baseline and elbow jumpers, and it worked for them.

 

[Get a Job]

If an open mid range shot is a worse shot than a contested 3, then why have a team play defense at all? By this logic, playing defense actually makes it a better shot.

My knee-jerk reaction to reading this was to ridicule you for saying something so nonsensical, but maybe I am missing something. Please elaborate on this statement so I can decide whether or not to proceed with the ridicule.

 

[Deepster]

If an open mid range shot is a worse shot than a contested 3, then why have a team play defense at all? By this logic, playing defense actually makes it a better shot.

In reality, we are still in the early days of analytics. They will start running regressions against different defenses and based on what happened immediately before and after. There is a lot to learn about what increases points per possession and what decreases points per possession. I am confident that post touches will make a comeback, while 5 out offenses will decline in prevalence.

I don't agree with this. It's basic math. You take minutes in a game, minutes in a possession and you can narrow down how many possessions you'll likely have in a game. If it's not a dunk or layup, kick it back out for a 3. The math undoubtedly supports scoring more points over the span of a game...which you need to obviously win.

If anything, I think you'll see something higher than a 3 pointer enter the rules before you see post play make a resurgence.

 

[Conndog]

Was basketball so bad when the 3-point shot wasn't around so that it was necessary to create the shot? When the game didn't have it, I think the best schools were stockpiling those players who were tallest or best suited for strong inside game. With perennial powers like Duke, Kansas, Kentucky etc doing this, what chance would other schools have? Leveling out the playing field by creating the 3-point shot so schools with smaller players could hit 3's and overcome this inside dominance was a good theory, but now the same perennial powers are often getting the best shooters too. Not always, but when you look at ratings of recruits each year, it still seems like the rich keep getting richer.

I miss seeing the mid-point shot and worry that basketball will be too narrowly played with only having dunks or 3-point shots. I don't like watching the pro game, it is missing something for me, and I think it is the lack of the mid-court range. If you wanted to reduce dependence on 3's to bring back a mid-range game, I'm not sure how to achieve this. You could put the line back even further maybe, but isn't it already almost to the maximum in the corners? Plus, what would stop the best shooters from still going to the perennial powers if the line were further away? Could you somehow impose some type of time limit for parking just outside the 3 line? Have a limit of the # of 3's that can be made in a game? Maybe limit the # of scholarships that any school can use for their roster? Just leave things be as they are now, or maybe just take out the 3-point shot again?

 

[Tenspro2002]

Two thoughts:

1- Hurley said earlier this year he wanted guys to take 3's instead of long 2's. This is consistent with the direction of basketball from the high school level on up. (I personally hate it).

2- I think there's a way to be contrarian and take advantage of defenses if you can have a strong mid-range game because other teams are not going to be able to defend it because no one really plays this way. Belichick was always scheming (offensively and defensively) in terms of what's next, not what's now; this creates match-up issues and success.

Give me basketball players with skills that are difficult to match up with - I'll take that 8 days a week. Example: 'Nova.

Taking 3's over long 2's is a no-brainer. The bigs on the women's team take a ton of 19-foot 2's and it's infuriating.

Some mid-range 2's are good shots both in themselves and opening things up for the rest of the offense:

• turn-around 2 from the foul line against a 2-3 zone
• short-corner 2 (Whaley was pretty good at this)
• pull-up floater/tear-drop from 6-8 feet instead of taking it into the teeth of the defense

But most other 2's are bad shots. The pull-up 18-footer that was basically Jalen Adams's specialty, awful. There's a reason those are being phased out.

 

[Tenspro2002]

The math is wrong because none of the sabermetrics take into account that basketball shots are not independent events. They are directly related to what comes immediately before and have a direct effect on what comes immediately after.

If all a team does is take 3's and try dunks, it will change how the defense plays them, which will lead to lower percentages on attempted 3's and dunks.

Yes, this is a valid point, but the balance is still heavily in favor of 3's and layups (and foul shots resulting from layup attempts).

You're saying "100% 3's and layups makes it easier to defend and lowers the quality of those looks", and that's true.

But the optimum is still probably something like 80% 3's and layups, not 50% or whatever it was in the 90s-00s when Jordan/Kobe/Carmelo shot a ton of 17-foot jumpers.

 

[Tenspro2002]

It's the worst shot to take. Although who remembers Jeff Adrian's knock down jumper from the elbow? It was money.

He tortured Texas A&M in that 2nd round game.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

My bottom line is that if you have a good variety of shotmakers on your roster taking a smart variety of shots each game, you're going to optimize your offense. The end.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

My knee-jerk reaction to reading this was to ridicule you for saying something so nonsensical, but maybe I am missing something. Please elaborate on this statement so I can decide whether or not to proceed with the ridicule.

I was being sarcastic. Sabermetrics are just beginning to factor in whether a shot is contested or not, but the data is lousy. It is not factoring in what the defense is doing, just where the shot is being taken.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Yes, this is a valid point, but the balance is still heavily in favor of 3's and layups (and foul shots resulting from layup attempts).

You're saying "100% 3's and layups makes it easier to defend and lowers the quality of those looks", and that's true.

But the optimum is still probably something like 80% 3's and layups, not 50% or whatever it was in the 90s-00s when Jordan/Kobe/Carmelo shot a ton of 17-foot jumpers.

I am not anti-analytics.

Take two teams from the 90's, the Rockets and the Knicks. I do think Tomjonavich had some sense of the analytics when he paired a backcourt of shooters like Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell and Sam Cassell with the Dream. Riley, on the other hand, had three no-shoot, good D guards like Starks, Anthony and Doc Rivers. If they had analytics in the 90's, the Rockets might still put the Rockets backcourt together. There is no way the Knicks front office would put that backcourt on one team if they knew then what they know now.

What I am saying is that the defense gets a vote in what is a good shot, and modern defenses are getting pretty good at defending the 3.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I don't agree with this. It's basic math. You take minutes in a game, minutes in a possession and you can narrow down how many possessions you'll likely have in a game. If it's not a dunk or layup, kick it back out for a 3. The math undoubtedly supports scoring more points over the span of a game...which you need to obviously win.

If anything, I think you'll see something higher than a 3 pointer enter the rules before you see post play make a resurgence.

I looked it up, and it turns out there are defenses on the court when teams are trying to score. If the defenses know you are going to just pass it around the perimeter and jack 3's, they will play stretch 2-3's, matchup zones or switch on every screen and force rushed shots on the perimeter. A mediocre Heat team got to the NBA finals in 2020 by playing a loose 2-3, completely shutting down a very good Bucks team along the way that thought it was taking high percentage shots but really wasn't.

Analytics has begun to track pullups vs. catch-and-shoot (catch-and-shoot is a lot more accurate), but does not yet track where the pass for the catch-and-shoot came from. I expect we will eventually learn that a kick out from the post to a 3 point shooter is a much higher percentage shot than a pass around the perimeter where the player has to turn to shoot and the defense is already there by the time he is facing the hoop.

Analytics also rewards a drive to the basket from 25 feet away over a post up, because the offense starts in a 5 out and analytics does not yet separate whether a player had to drive into the teeth of the defense that has rotated over vs. getting a pass in the post and having to make one move to get a high quality shot off.

I think the next generation of analytics will show that what happens right before the shot has a much bigger impact on the expected value of the shot than where the shot is taken.

 

[alphasigko]

AJ can certainly stop his mid-range floaters anytime