The mid-range jumper: Important for shot creators, not so important for spot up shooters

I thought I was in the other thread lol

 

OP, I understand what you are saying, but you are failing to distinguish between open/good midrange shots and contested midrange shots. Right now, midrange averages are suppressed throughout the league because most midrange shots are contested/difficult shots.

That's why LMA has a low midrange percentage, because many of his shots, especially since he is a 1st option, are contested/difficult shots.

Open midrange shots can be a great and valuable contributor to an offense and an absolute necessity. None of today's statistics show this percentage.

 

I really hate this logic because it just doesn't make sense. The two options aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, if you had to choose between the two and take just one - The option for the three pointer may make more sense. But, that's not how it works. You said Lebron shot 42.5% from mid-range. But he ALSO shot 40.6% on 3pts. When you have a player like the OP has mentioned, a creator/playmaker with the right skill set, you can get the best of both options.

 

the dunk, important for athletic freaks who can't shoot not so important for those that don't dunk.

everybody should have a mid range game. if you can shoot 89% from ft and 40% from 3s, it should be a sin not having a mid range game.

 

A few points:

1: There is almost no difference in the FG% between shots taken in the 8-15 foot range and shots taken in the 16-23 foot range in the NBA.
2: On a mid range shot a NBA player wide open when the pass is made will have a defender in his face when he hoists the shot. Defenders are that quick these days. The exception is when the ball handler is freed up by a screen.
3: The front page on Clutch Fans has featured an article with the premise that the Harden-Howard pick and roll will be the most effective play in the NBA next season. While it obviously will be a great play, I believe the deadliest play will be off the DDMO with Howard on the weak side and Parsons in the corner. On Hardens dribble penetration the defense has to bring either the center or the small forward into the lane to cut off Harden. This either frees up Howard for an above the rim lob pass or Parsons for the wide open 3 point shot from the corner. Parsons shot >50% on corner threes last season.
4: The Rockets took ~19% of their shots from mid range last season, far and away the lowest in the NBA. Given a year to work on execution, the Rockets may only be taking ~14% mid range jump shots next season.
5: When the Rockets take a mid range jump shot it should be viewed as a failure to execute their offense.
6: Mid range jump shots will have to be taken of course. But Parsons, Harden and Lin already can shoot them at about a league average rate.
7: If the Rockets add a player that specializes in mid range shots the Rockets will have to run plays for them in their offense. LMA is great at mid range shots, but the offense ceaselessly runs plays designed to open up the mid range shot for him.

 

Yeah. Meh is one of the most astute members of Clutch Fans. Before I respond to any of his posts I read them twice. And then I may consider changing my opinion to match his.

 

While I agree LMA's case. I wouldn't call coming off screens then catch and shoot "shot creation"...

That is quite debatable. And how's Defino at PF better than Patterson "after" the trade? LOL. Before the trade, it is quite debatable, at a small chunk of the game maybe, but Defino failed at so many levels defending PFs, remember last game vs. Lakers?

 

LMA's efficiency is low because he had to create a lot shots on his own. A lot of long 2's are compliment to his inside games. Often step back or turn around 2's. If his long 2's are catch and shoots while open, I would expect the efficiency to go up. On the other head, the point of stretching is the threat. Defense cannot leave him alone, especially with his size and ability to drive in. In that perspective, a long 2 stretch is perfect, because you can get to the basket a lot faster with a few feet closer to the rim in comparison to 3 pt stretch.

Point is, to get back to the main discussion of the thread is, there is a lot of room between "shot creators" and "spot up shooters". While I agree 1 dimensional "spot up shooters" are better off shooting 3s, but there are so many players are more than 1 dimensional "spot up shooters". They aren't "shot creators", but they can shoot long 2's or drive in and finish after a pump fake. Many PFs are like this, for instance, Scola. I think Scola would be a very nice stretch 4 for us, but of course he can't get him now...Just shooting mid-range jumpers is less efficient than 3's, but mid-range jumper + drive in and finish can be higher efficiency than 3's. ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL~

 

This.

 

Lebron and Kobe draw a lot of fouls from their midrange jumpers, because:

1. They are good midrange shooters that need to be defended.
2. They are crafty with their pump fakes and leaning in.
3. Refs give them the benefit of a doubt if they miss, there "must have been contact" if they missed the shot.

 

Too black and white (not in a racy way).

Of course, a decent mid-range shot helps everyone. And this "primary ball handler" idea can be taken too far. Only one guy on the floor (or team) should be de facto allowed to take mid range shots?

If Asik or Howard could even hit 40 percent from midrange completely wide-open, that would help so much. A lot of guys are just never going to be good three-point shooters. They shouldn't be relegated to drive/slashing, put backs, fast breaks, etc.

 

Asik already hits 40% of his mid ranged shots, but they make up only 5% of the shots he takes.

What Morey has done is that, other than centers, he refuses to sign players that shoot many mid range shots. Works every time.

 

I'm not making the assumption that any 3pt shooter can easily ball fake his way into a midrange jumper. I am saying that it is always better to have midrange as an offensive option for everybody. Whether a player can master both 3pt shooting and midrange jumpers in their career is a different debate.

Again my point is the midrange debate has lost it's original meaning and is now being viewed by many as a useless shot. This is never the case, a coach will always prefer someone who has midrange as an additional skillset than one who doesn't because it allows them to draw more plays to throw their opponents off. Midrange will always be important for any player, but if a player can only master 3pt or midrange, of course the player should master the more statistically advantageous 3pt option first.

 

I tend to agree with you.

Having as many weapons in a players arsenal can only help when a play is broken or even just to add more doubt in the player who is guarding you

 

Each team shoots a potential game winner about once every twenty games. So your argument is based that people are underating a shot that in 7 percent of 0.05% of possessions yield a better result than if a three pointer was shot. Granted, driving the lane and getting into the paint is still much better than the mid range shot in this situation.

 

As a Rockets fan, the more long 2s LMA shoots for the Blazers, the better.

 

I'm not sure if I agree with the premise. Like others have mentioned the 2 pt field goal is important, however i'd rather shoot 3 pointers or get to the basket. The mid-range or long-range 2 should be a last resort shot. Obviously within a game those shots will have to be taken, and obviously when they are taken you'd rather have someone that can make them on a consistent basis.

 

It was just one example. I disagree as far as layups go. In ideal situations, yeah layups are better. But there's a reason we don't see players driving in and laying it up for game winners as often as jumpers. It's just not as practical for reasons of clock management being infinitely harder, limited options compared to your typical layup scenario cause the option of passing is gone(unless you opt to leave time on the clock and give the opponent a chance to respond), less likely to get a call which plays a small part in why the layup is statistically better in the first place, you can't break the play like you typically can if the lane gets blocked off, etc.

 

Being down by 1,2 points or tied with less than 24 seconds are the only scenarios that mid range jumpers outperform 3 pointers on average. If every time in this scenario was either a jump shoot or 3 pointer, once every 3-4 years, the midrange shot would pay off on average.

 

It's more complicated than that. You also have to calculate the shot odds for situations leading into that final shot difference of 1 or 2 points, and situations where you chew up shot clock time vs don't. There is also the question of being ahead by 1 point but with time on the clock for the other team to take a shot.