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

Good midrange shooters tend to take a lot more contested shots than uncontested shots. Big men in PnR offenses can get some uncontested midrange jumpers if the opposing team plays Ice against them. This tends to only happen when the big man isn't a good midrange shooter though.

 

Fair point. That is why you don't make the midrange shot the focus and ultimate goal of your offense. Specifically, when you run an offense and have talented players, something has got to give. Alot of times defenses, especially if they know you have good 3-point shooters and at-the-rim finishers, is to give you the open look from midrange. When that happens, you should capitalize. Next time, they will cover the midrange, and allow you the open 3-point look or move to the rim.

 

I have to disagree with you on breaking down the stats like that. All of what you asked for is already baked into the overall stats. And the eFG% advantage for the 3 point shot is currently at an insurmountable 14%+ difference.

However I do agree that you cannot drive the 3-23 foot mid range shot to zero. Morey probably cannot get it down from last seasons 27% of all shots to 20% of all shots. But why spend any resources for a shooter who is good at a bad shot that you do not want taken more than 25% of the time? And if you do take those mid ranged shots why not take them from under 7 feet, which does have a slightly better than 39% chance to go in? And there will always be the bad 2 point shot as the shot clock winds down. But that only stems from a failed offensive possession. Don't add a player who shoots bad shots. Work on offensive execution.

And I have to disagree that a team can stop both the inside shots and the 3 point shots on Houston's 2013-2014 lineup. How many players can handle Howard out on an island around the restricted area? How many teams also have good enough perimeter defenders to contain both Lin and Harden from the dribble drive penetration without help? And how many teams also have an offense that can keep up with the Rockets? Don't forget that the Rockets will have somewhere around the 5th best defense in the league next season. Miami, OKC and maybe the Spurs are the only teams that I can think of that will be able to hang with the Rockets in a playoff series.

 

For me, it is easier for a role player to get a good look at 3 pointer than a mid range shot outside a few small circumstances. The role player is a great 3 point shooter and gets an overly aggressive closeout, but is a good enough dribbler to put ball on the floor and create an open uncontested jumper. He is a roll man off the pick and roll and the PnR ball handler is enough of a threat to create an open mid range shot for roll man.

Ball handlers get more room in the midrange than up close or at the three when defenses collapse the paint too quickly.

 

Unless you have played the game at the NBA level you cannot know much of anything about playing that game. However statistics is a branch of mathematics and I am pretty good at that.

Being asked to compare contested 3 point shots to contested 2 point shots just tells me that you do not understand the application of statistics in the NBA. We do know the the eFG% of the Rockets 3 point shots was 54.9%. The leagues eFG% on shots between 3 and 23 feet was a terrible 39.6%. Why would it matter if the reason is that players get better looks from beyond the 3 point line? Why would it matter if more mid range shots are taken at the buzzer? As if that shot happens with any great frequency. All that matters is the results. And that simple analysis says that the Rockets score ~1.10 pps from 3 point range and the league average on mid range shots is ~0.80 pps.

 

There's two considerations. One is that you can only put so many people behind the 3 point line for a kick out. It's basically two. The reason is that a driving player can only really kick-out to the corners. Secondly, you have to space out your 3 point shooters or you'll just have one defensive player guarding both and adjusting on the long pass. Finally a three from any other spot is a much lower percentage shot. It's not 40% it's more like 27%. So even with 3 point shots theres a spread of eFG% that has to be considered.

So you have two other players who have to be on the court and provide some level of offensive threat. One of those players is your center - who is setting a pick n roll or hanging near the baseline ready to step in when his defender leaves him to help on the driver.

So where should the other guy go? Well you already have two 3 point specialists on the floor to burn a defense that over sags on the driver. And they are occupying the spots where 3's are most effective - the corners.

So having a guy who can float around inside to wherever the gaps in the defense is away from the driver can leave him with an open shot. It's a shorter pass so the defense has less time to react - and although they have less distance to cover, the guy is open and is also tall because he is a 4. So he's going to get a decent look. In my opinion, if the corners are well covered and the driver is seeing no angle for other passes or to the lay-up, they have another out in being able to set-up a mid-range open jump shot. Since it is an open jumper its going to be the highest mid-range shot a player can get - so while the overall midrange shot might be 42% - a wide open 15 footer could be as high as 50% or more depending on the player. That's a better shot than the 3 point shot near the top of the key and easier to find.

 

If there are players out there who can hit mid range shots at 50% or better then it wouldn't be termed the worst shot in bball.

The league average for mid-range as you say is 42% for 2, if your entire team shot 42% fg you're probably gonna lose the game. This is a big reason why the best defenses in the NBA leave the mid range wide open to encourage opponents to take as a many mid-range shots as they can.

 

re-read my post and then respond. reading is fundamental

 

The play goes beyond simply the person driving the ball and the person sitting the corner. A "kick-out" can simply be a situation that sends the defense scrambling from clogging the lane to running out at a shooter. From there, the defense basically in trouble, the guy on the perimeter has a number of options, such as:
1) take the shot
2) put the ball on the floor and go toward the rim
3) swing it around the perimeter for someone else's open 3
4) swing it around the perimeter and dump it back in to a cutter or big man with deep position

Additionally, with any number of ball-fakes (pass, shoot, jab step), this creates pretty serious havoc on the defenders.

You say that a single defender can effectively cover two shooters but the fact is you have men hanging around the 12-'15' range, and you're making it so that defenders have less ground they need to cover.

anyway, I can't understand how this is even a discussion. I think the results generally speak for themselves, for example, the Rockets, with the lowest number of long 2's attempted last year actually put up efficient offensive output. If the long 2 was such a critically important shot you'd think the bottom-line effectiveness of the Rockets attack would have been affected negatively. That doesn't seem to be the case at all.

 

Your post has a ton of ifs....ifs, ifs, ifs. But the reality is nobody shoots 50% or greater from the mid-range shot, which is why you're seeing the "long two" shot go out of vogue as more and more people realize how bad a shot it is.

 

Since when is a 10 foot jumper a "long two"?????

 

You are kidding me - a wide open mid-range jumper isn't 50%?????

C'mon. Guys like LMA hit that better than half the time. The only reason the over all percentage is 42% is because it includes shots that are contested, forced, post-ups, and end of shot-clock.

But off of a drive and kick out the shot is far more effective. You guys are making a big mistake by looking at the overall percentage.

 

OK, so how often is the wide open mid-range jumper available? If, as you say, a wide-open jumper is 50%, then the fact that the overall percentage is relatively low indicates that a significant number of those shots are indeed contested, forced, etc. In other words, for a majority of the time, it's a bad shot.

And, if the drive and kick is far more effective, well, why not get 3 points out of it instead of 2?

 

Because

You already have two guys in the corners and as you can see here for Chandler Parsons, he doesn't shoot at least 33% from the key. Very few players do. So that 50% shot is a good shot when the defense is not giving up the corner 3's.

 

Ray Allen shot 56% from mid-range. Long 2's? Why would anyone take a long 2? That's a horrible shot. I am talking 10-15 feet jumpers. That's MID-RANGE. Big difference.

Scola didn't take all his mid-range shots uncontested. Maybe 75%. But that's enough contested shots to drop him down to 46% overall.

And as I pointed out, very few 3 point shooters can hit over 33% from the wings. So when the corner 3 is not there, a mid-range wide open 2 point shot is a good shot.

 

Since when is a 5 foot mid ranged shot an efficient shot?

<a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/4KKa--kw97C1RPe8cFhkVYm-xKLOdCQV490zyCR4_p4?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-w6uNVGZlAgE/UilG-zmBbZI/AAAAAAAAAPY/XivR2Y8cTk4/s640/Hoopdata%2520-%2520NBA%2520Offensive%2520Shot%2520Location%2520Stats%2520-%2520Mozilla%2520Firefox%2520952013%2520110727%2520PM.jpg" height="492" width="640" /></a>

 

Lou, I do not want to overstep, and if I have I do apologize, but it seems like you are arguing against the statistical approach to basketball. Given that Morey is the GM it seems like any counter approach is somehow doomed to failure.

Best to you and yours.