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

This is the position I agree with. It's not the run itself, it's the threat of a run that keeps defenses honest.

If a team is 100% sure that you are going to pass, they will load up their entire defensive line with speed rushers who can't hold a block to save their life. Because it won't matter. Opposite the rushers they can max out the number of defensive backs they have on the field.

The same thing is true in basketball. If you keep doing the same thing every time, which in our case is drive the paint then kick-out, then eventually the opponent will catch on. You'll give up a bunch of turnovers, and teams will leave the mid-range completely undefended.

In the NBA now that mid-range area is becoming a juicy nougat for teams to attack. If you can simply keep defenses honest by threatening to hit shots from that range, then you change their entire defensive gameplan. It's like having a pass-heavy attack with also the capability to run the ball. Spread offenses don't work in the NFL, and they don't work in the NBA either. The Rockets would be a team that you could say ran a 'spread' basketball offense last year. It worked, until we faced the best teams. So, the fun's over. It's time for us to move to the big leagues and get a real running game.

 

Don't know if this has already been said because I don't have the time to read through every page of this thread. But, a midrange game is very important to have for atleast one of your frontcourt players. Why? Simple, because it pulls opposing big men away from the basket and creates more space.

Rockets fans should know this better than anyone else. We lost a series to the Utah Jazz because of the effect Boozer's mid range shot had on Yao. It created chaos for our defense. It made Yao come out 12 ft from the basket which tired him greatly and also opened up driving opportunities for D-Will.

 

In goal line/short yardage packages, you would rather have a back who consistently get the 2-5 yards, over a guy who loses yardage.

 

Then how much better would it be to have a power forward that can hit 35% of his threes for an eFG of 52.5%? The FG% for mid range shots is only ~40%.

 

No one is advocating not taking a wide open mid range shot. The FG% on those shots is more than competitive with the other shots discussed. Heck, even Asik hit wide open shots from 12 feet last season. Any Rocket non center can make those shots at a high percentage if left unguarded. However it is almost impossible to get a great look from 3-23 feet from the basket in today's NBA. Just look at the FG% of great shooters on mid range shots. It really sucks.

 

Most of the great power forwards rarely took 3 pointers.

35 percent on some wide open 3 can't really be compared to 40 percent on a mid-range post-up fadeaway. You are not going to get that open 3 at will. The post up fade option is almost always there unless they double team.

Taking it further - one could say "nothing but dunks and free throws" because the EFG is the highest.

 

I am using the NBA averages for the entire last season. I would say it is fairly representative of of the FG% for mid range shots and 3 point shots.

 

Obviously we all want dunks and wide open threes. The problem is that those shots are stifled in the playoffs.

 

So you are saying that something bad to use in the regular season will become good to use during the playoffs?

 

Take the top 25 scorers in the history of the nba minus the centers and pfs and their most productive shot was the mid rqnge shot. You can even take guys like allen,miller,bird or jordan. Their best shot was a mid range shot. When kobe needs a basket,where is he?

 

It is one thing to say that the mid-range shot is not (over the course of a season) as efficient as layups, putbacks, or open 3's.

It is quite another to say that only the designated "primary ball handler" on the team should be given the green light to take (or practice) mid-range shots.

You really think that a team will be effective if it only affords 1 (or maybe 2) guys the opportunity to take (and practice) mid-range shots? And that the only a "stretch" 4 who shoots 35% on open 3s is somehow more effective than someone like McHale, Barkley, Duncan, or Karl Malone?

Such a team would inevitably have an extremely low 3 point percentage and commit numerous 24 second violations as they pass up open shots because they are not 3s. Opposing teams will get a lot of fast break points because of all the long rebounds they will get. Defenses will invariably adjust. I love Morey and all his stats, but those tools have their limits.

Focus on taking more good 3s over midrange shots? Yes! That is a sound strategy. Take that strategy to an extreme? Where only Harden is given the green-light to shoot mid-range shots? Have guys like Dmo abandon improving his post game and concentrate solely only on 3s? No. One-trick ponies are not going to contend.

 

That's because players are not used to shooting from those spots. Figures...

At the end of the day, a balanced scoring attack is the most frightening. A PG that can stop and pop scares the **** out of me. I am having nightmares of Payton/Stockton all over again.

A midrange game, a midpost game, can make a good team a GREAT team in my opinion.

 

The counter points are the following:

1: Playing a PF that cannot force the opponent to guard out at the 3 point line means that help is more available on dribble drive penetration by Harden and Lin.
2: Playing a PF that cannot force the opponent to guard out at the 3 point line means a double of Howard in the restricted area is much easier to accomplish.
3: The Rockets did take 27% of their shots between 3-23 feet. Those mid range shots yielded almost 0.4 PPS less than the 3 point shots and at the rim shots. Hopefully the Rockets can drive the % of mid range shots further down next season. On a side note I have been meaning to see if that was the lowest % of mid range shots ever in the NBA.
4: With an off season to work on it the Rockets will be better at creating open shots beyond the 3 point line.

 

You need to look at the time left on the shot clock as well.

Midrange shots usually get taken because the defense isn't yielding an easy path to the basket and no open 3 pointers.

A contested midrange shot is still better than a contested 3 point shot and an out of control drive to the basket. Contested mid-range shots are shots of last resort. So naturally they will have a lower percentage.

I'd say the analysis needs to be done as follows.

Midrange shots open
midrange shots contested
Midrange shots late in shot clock
Midrange shots early in shot clock
3 point shots open
3 point shots contested.
3 point shots late in shot clock
3 point shots early in shot clock
That might help you see a clearer picture.

 

My point was you cannot claim Delfino at PF was necessarily better than PPat. Even if that was the truth, you cannot claim a 3pt stretch PF was necessarily better than long 2 stretch PF. As I mentioned from before, which you didn't reply on, a long 2 PF with ability to drive to the basket after a pump fake can be more efficient than a regular 3pt PF.

 

I know this past season Lebron has made transition to the 4, but he's made his living close to the basket even when he was a SF primarily.

Wade same thing.

Tony Parker same thing. Ginobili is a up close or 3 ball guy.

Paul Pierce is a balance between close, 3 ball and midrange.

So basically, the last 13 years or so...the top guard or SF has mostly been a guy that strikes mostly up close for championship teams with the exception being Kobe Bryant (primary midrange) and Pierce (balanced). I left off Dallas (leaned very heavily on a PF) and Detroit (balanced team without a big star).

The mid range pull up shot is a very good tool for the primary ball handler with the shot clock going down. Outside that, teams should get into their offense early to minimize the number of times their primary ball handler has to create a low efficient shot for himself.

 

This is 100% correct. That's why you can't just look at high level statistics and make a determination. It's like saying just look at the steals leaderboard and decide that whoever has more steals per game is a better defender than whoever has less steals per game. Then what about Joe Dumars? He had very few steals per game but was a darn near dominant defender at the 2 spot.

The truth is that today very few open midrange shots are taken compared to in years past, because the strategy of the game has changed. Open midrange shots by good midrange shooters is still a very high value proposition, far better than contested three pointers, and even better than contested shots at the basket.

If you have played the game, you will know the above is true.