A reminder of why the midrange game is dead.

[Czar]

 

[Oakland]

Great graphic (graphic resprentation of complex data has sharply improved in the last 5 years). For me, the 3 pt line is an arbitrary corruption of the game, even though I understand why it is there. Interesting that the 3 pt data is so asymmetrical.

 

[RF2044]

I question whether that is representative of those mid range shots being low efficiency, or whether it is more a function of the way that the modern game is currently played, emphasizing the three point shot.

I'll bet if you had a similar info graphic from before the introduction of three point line in collegiate basketball, the data would not just look different, it would paint a completely different picture.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

I question whether that is representative of those mid range shots being low efficiency, or whether it is more a function of the way that the modern game is currently played, emphasizing the three point shot.

I'll bet if you had a similar info graphic from before the introduction of three point line in collegiate basketball, the data would not just look different, it would paint a completely different picture.

of courses it would, because then it would be stupid to do anything but get the ball as close as possible to the rim

 

[RF2044]

of courses it would, because then it would be stupid to do anything but get the ball as close as possible to the rim

What a shocking philosophy.

Point being, the orientation of offensive coaching has changed due to the three point shot. It doesn't mean that mid range [read: not long range] shooting is a bad offensive strategy, it's just more indicative of the current happenstance that the intermediate shooting game has largely been abandoned in favor of the three point shot.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

What a shocking philosophy.

Point being, the orientation of offensive coaching has changed due to the three point shot. It doesn't mean that mid range [read: not long range] shooting is a bad offensive strategy, it's just more indicative of the current happenstance that the intermediate shooting game has largely been abandoned in favor of the three point shot.

I respectfully disagree (I rarely dont agree with your takes)

The data would look the same regardless of coaching strategy. Any strategy shift stands no chance against the cold mathematical power of 3 vs 2 points given the current 3 point line distance.

move it back a few feet, and it might even out (at least in the college game)

 

[Czar]

I question whether that is representative of those mid range shots being low efficiency, or whether it is more a function of the way that the modern game is currently played, emphasizing the three point shot.

I'll bet if you had a similar info graphic from before the introduction of three point line in collegiate basketball, the data would not just look different, it would paint a completely different picture.

They are low efficiency. It's not a debatable point. If they were efficient the mid range heat map would be red, even with the low usage of those spots. But it's not.

 

[Dave85]

They are low efficiency. It's not a debatable point. If they were efficient the mid range heat map would be red, even with the low usage of those spots. But it's not.

The low efficiency may be true but I would rather make two 2-point shots than miss two 3-point shots.

 

[OrangeDW]

Move the line back.

 

[Dave85]

Move the line back.

That would change the game significantly. If shooting three's became 20% instead of 30+% we may see a return to the two point game. I'm not a big fan of the three point shot. I like watching good motion offenses. Although ND's inside outside game is really fun to watch. ND's offense this year is what I would like see how the Orange play if we ever get a credible three point shooter.

 

[RF2044]

They are low efficiency. It's not a debatable point. If they were efficient the mid range heat map would be red, even with the low usage of those spots. But it's not.

It absolutely is debatable. When is the data from? Because shooting is a lost art, and coaches coach differently than they did say, in the mid-80s before the three point shot. If you viewed the same data from 1986, I'm guessing that the data would look quite different. It's low efficiency only because contemporary players don't work on shooting mid-range shots. I'd also be willing to bet that the NBA's data would look quite a bit different, with a more efficient distribution extending away from the basket.

And please note that I'm not talking about taking 17 footers, but if you watch basketball from pre-trifecta, offensive concepts were quite different--and the players could execute. The objective used to be to work the ball as close to the basket as possible to get the highest percentage shot you could, and jump shooters were much more prevalent. Today it's all dunks and threes--hence the distribution in your chart.

 

[Millhouse]

What a shocking philosophy.

Point being, the orientation of offensive coaching has changed due to the three point shot. It doesn't mean that mid range [read: not long range] shooting is a bad offensive strategy, it's just more indicative of the current happenstance that the intermediate shooting game has largely been abandoned in favor of the three point shot.

it's been abandoned because it's bad strategy

the mid range crowd misses the old days. they liked basketball when they were kids and people took lots of those shots. they liked baseball when they were kids and there were lots of stolen bases and bunts.

 

[Millhouse]

I respectfully disagree (I rarely dont agree with your takes)

The data would look the same regardless of coaching strategy. Any strategy shift stands no chance against the cold mathematical power of 3 vs 2 points given the current 3 point line distance.

move it back a few feet, and it might even out (at least in the college game)

you go to the hoop, you might get fouled and get 3 instead of two. no surprise that there's a big moat where no one shoots

 

[RF2044]

it's been abandoned because it's bad strategy

the mid range crowd misses the old days. they liked basketball when they were kids and people took lots of those shots. they liked baseball when they were kids and there were lots of stolen bases and bunts.

It isn't nostalgia--offensive play WAS better then. I invite you to watch some SU games from 1985 - 1989, and then compare it to 2013-2015. You'll see a qualitatively different level of play, and lots of players who can hit 15 footers. It's not a bad shot / inefficient when you have players who can hit those shots. Today's players can't because they don't practice it. Dunks and threes.

 

[rosconey]

i would love to see the wide open game of years ago when offense was more important than defense-

then they called fouls where today the dont - the refs have allowed the game to become a punching match at times with all the hand contact while playing defense

 

[Millhouse]

It isn't nostalgia--offensive play WAS better then. I invite you to watch some SU games from 1985 - 1989, and then compare it to 2013-2015. You'll see a qualitatively different level of play, and lots of players who can hit 15 footers. It's not a bad shot / inefficient when you have players who can hit those shots. Today's players can't because they don't practice it. Dunks and threes.

those players hitting 15 footers then would be hitting 20 footers now

did anyone complain about the lost art of the long range jumper then?

they don't take those mid range shots now and we're left with a few desperate shot clock shot beaters and everyone wonders why no one can hit the shot.

SU was not known for their ability to hit easy unguarded 15 foot shots in the 80s

 

[Cusefan0307]

Here is just one piece of data. The data doesn't go back far enough, but Steph Curry is all but considered the best shooter in the NBA right now and for his career shoots 44 percent from behind the arc. From 10 feet to the line he shoots 45.5 percent for his career.

He shoots the same percentage from 12 feet that he does from 25, so why would anyone want him shooting 12 footers if he can get one more point from an area he shoots the same percentage.

Klay Thompson for his career actually shoots better from three than he does from 10-16 feet. 42% vs 39.

JJ redick shoots better from Midrange than three, but not enough to want him to shoot more there. 44.7 vs 39.6.

These are three of the best shooters in the PRO's, and you wouldn't even want them to shoot 18 footers. It's unfortunate the data doesn't go back further, in the NBA three point percentages have been increasing for a number of years. Part of that probably has to do with shooters practicing the shot more than they did in the past, and I'm sure they practice the mid-range game less, but I assume that before the three pointed people probably shot a worse percentage the further out they were so coaches probably de-emphasized that shot, and most of the outside shots prior to the three point line were probably closer to 15 feet than they were from 22.

 

[RF2044]

those players hitting 15 footers then would be hitting 20 footers now

did anyone complain about the lost art of the long range jumper then?

they don't take those shots now and we're left with a few desperate shot clock shot beaters and everyone wonders why no one can hit the shot.

SU was not known for their ability to hit easy unguarded 15 foot shots in the 80s

Players like Rafael Addison, Pearl, Wendall Alexis, Triche, Monroe, Leo Rautins, and many others would disagree.

You're a numbers guy, so let me interpret that chart for you. In today's game, college offensive systems are geared around the three point shot. Dunks, transitions, and threes. That's it. Players don't work on the mid-range part of their game, hence the low efficiency of taking shots from there. CJ Fair was an anomaly in the modern college game, because players don't take 16 foot jumpers anymore. An college coaches never design plays to get those shots anyway.

But if you looked at the NBA, where offensive concepts ARE designed to get high quality mid range shots, you'd see a different distribution of data. Why? Because players at that level can make that shot--even many of the bigs. Which in turn changes the skew of data, which in turn changes the interpretation about whether those are good or bad shots. They're only inefficient if players can't make that shot. If they can, then the data changes and so does the interpretive conclusion.

Nobody is advocating an offense based around taking 18 footers. But I'd say that chart is more reflective of the way the game is played at the college level today in the US than it is about the game itself.

 

[Millhouse]

Here is just one piece of data. The data doesn't go back far enough, but Steph Curry is all but considered the best shooter in the NBA right now and for his career shoots 44 percent from behind the arc. From 10 feet to the line he shoots 45.5 percent for his career.

He shoots the same percentage from 12 feet that he does from 25, so why would anyone want him shooting 12 footers if he can get one more point from an area he shoots the same percentage.

Klay Thompson for his career actually shoots better from three than he does from 10-16 feet. 42% vs 39.

JJ redick shoots better from Midrange than three, but not enough to want him to shoot more there. 44.7 vs 39.6.

These are three of the best shooters in the PRO's, and you wouldn't even want them to shoot 18 footers. It's unfortunate the data doesn't go back further, in the NBA three point percentages have been increasing for a number of years. Part of that probably has to do with shooters practicing the shot more than they did in the past, and I'm sure they practice the mid-range game less, but I assume that before the three pointed people probably shot a worse percentage the further out they were so coaches probably de-emphasized that shot, and most of the outside shots prior to the three point line were probably closer to 15 feet than they were from 22.

i think a jump shot is a jump shot is a jump shot.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Players like Rafael Addison, Pearl, Wendall Alexis, Triche, Monroe, Leo Rautins, and many others would disagree.

You're a numbers guy, so let me interpret that chart for you. In today's game, college offensive systems are geared around the three point shot. Dunks, transitions, and threes. That's it. Players don't work on the mid-range part of their game, hence the low efficiency of taking shots from there. CJ Fair was an anomaly in the modern college game, because players don't take 16 foot jumpers anymore. An college coaches never design plays to get those shots anyway.

But if you looked at the NBA, where offensive concepts ARE designed to get high quality mid range shots, you'd see a different distribution of data. Why? Because players at that level can make that shot--even many of the bigs. Which in turn changes the skew of data, which in turn changes the interpretation about whether those are good or bad shots. They're only inefficient if players can't make that shot. If they can, then the data changes and so does the interpretive conclusion.

Nobody is advocating an offense based around taking 18 footers. But I'd say that chart is more reflective of the way the game is played at the college level today in the US than it is about the game itself.

I'm with Millhouse on this and I disagree about the NBA. The NBA is shooting the three more than ever. It's a good strategy to shoot the three over 17 footers. Take a look at Reggie Miller. You wouldn't really want him shooting 17 footers either. He was a 45 percent shooter the last 5 years of his career from 17 feet. He was 38% from three. This info on shooting percentage by distance on basketball reference unfortunately only goes back to 2000, but no metric going back to then supports teams in college or the NBA shooting more 15 footers.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millere01.html

 

[Millhouse]

Players like Rafael Addison, Pearl, Wendall Alexis, Triche, Monroe, Leo Rautins, and many others would disagree.

You're a numbers guy, so let me interpret that chart for you. In today's game, college offensive systems are geared around the three point shot. Dunks, transitions, and threes. That's it. Players don't work on the mid-range part of their game, hence the low efficiency of taking shots from there. CJ Fair was an anomaly in the modern college game, because players don't take 16 foot jumpers anymore. An college coaches never design plays to get those shots anyway.

But if you looked at the NBA, where offensive concepts ARE designed to get high quality mid range shots, you'd see a different distribution of data. Why? Because players at that level can make that shot--even many of the bigs. Which in turn changes the skew of data, which in turn changes the interpretation about whether those are good or bad shots. They're only inefficient if players can't make that shot. If they can, then the data changes and so does the interpretive conclusion.

Nobody is advocating an offense based around taking 18 footers. But I'd say that chart is more reflective of the way the game is played at the college level today in the US than it is about the game itself.

I think there is probably a strong correlation between midrange shooting ability and free throw shooting ability. Do you agree? if so, could probably look at free throws to tell if ability has decreased or if it's just selection bias (aka the only mid range shots are desperate bad shots)

I think you ignore why the game is geared around dunks transitions and threes and I think you are ignoring how much the NBA is moving towards the same model.

 

[RF2044]

I'm with Millhouse on this and I disagree about the NBA. The NBA is shooting the three more than ever. It's a good strategy to shoot the three over 17 footers. Take a look at Reggie Miller. You wouldn't really want him shooting 17 footers either. He was a 45 percent shooter the last 5 years of his career from 17 feet. He was 38% from three. This info on shooting percentage by distance on basketball reference unfortunately only goes back to 2000, but no metric going back to then supports teams in college or the NBA shooting more 15 footers.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millere01.html

I think you're making the mistake of equating mid range shot only with 17 footers. I think everybody understands / agrees that those are the least efficient shots in basketball. 8-12 footers are mid range shots, too. In the NBA, those are shots that all five players on the floor can make, which is why the efficiency data would paint a different picture. Look at the chart in the OP. Point blank and threes. If you looked at the NBA data, I'm sure that it would be fairly efficient out to 10-12 feet, and then also from three.

Again, not disupting that the efficiency would drop off as you get beyond that, out to 15, 17, or 18 feet.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I think you're making the mistake of equating mid range shot only with 17 footers. I think everybody understands / agrees that those are the least efficient shots in basketball. 8-12 footers are mid range shots, too. In the NBA, those are shots that all five players on the floor can make, which is why the efficiency data would paint a different picture. Look at the chart in the OP. Point blank and threes. If you looked at the NBA data, I'm sure that it would be fairly efficient out to 10-12 feet, and then also from three.

Again, not disupting that the efficiency would drop off as you get beyond that, out to 15, 17, or 18 feet.

Klay Thompsons FG% from 3-10 feet is terrible. 36%
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompkl01.html

Steph is 50% this year from 3-10, but only 40% for his career.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01.html

JJ Redick is 39% from 3-10 feet.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/redicjj01.html

Reggie Miller was 45% from 3-10 feet his last 5 years.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millere01.html

You are right that the midrange game has disappeared, but i would guess it was based on strategy. Coaches/GM's probably looked at the numbers after the three point line was introduced and saw that their players shot 40 % from ten feet, and then made the analysis that the percentage wasn't that much lower as you got out to 25 feet, but you had the opportunity to score more points from 25. Offenses may have adjusted to put players in positions where they produced the most points per shot for the team. This is just one theory. I also think there is just way more emphasis on defense now, and probably more zones since the three point shot was introduced.

 

[Millhouse]

Klay Thompsons FG% from 3-10 feet is terrible. 36%
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompkl01.html

Steph is 50% this year from 3-10, but only 40% for his career.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01.html

JJ Redick is 39% from 3-10 feet.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/redicjj01.html

Reggie Miller was 45% from 3-10 feet his last 5 years.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millere01.html

You are right that the midrange game has disappeared, but i would guess it was based on strategy. Coaches/GM's probably looked at the numbers after the three point line was introduced and saw that their players shot 40 % from ten feet, and then made the analysis that the percentage wasn't that much lower as you got out to 25 feet, but you had the opportunity to score more points from 25. Offenses may have adjusted to put players in positions where they produced the most points per shot for the team. This is just one theory. I also think there is just way more emphasis on defense now, and probably more zones since the three point shot was introduced.

if those shots were so neglected, i think some desperate GM/coach/program would exploit it. i think basketball coaches are generally bright. i think stupid strategy can persist in more violent games where your coach pool is coming from ogres with brain injuries. but i think it's telling that as the data has gotten better (sportvu, databases), the nba has moved in one direction

all the [blank]-reference sites are amazing

 

[NYCorange]

I'm all for moving the line back, but NOT because it would bring back the mid-range game. While the NBA shot is a little bit harder and might cause percentages to drop slightly, it would actually improve offensive flow more than anything as defenses would now be more spread out. More important would be shortening the shot clock (I'm all for 30 seconds, or even 24) and instituting/calling NBA style hand-checking rules. It's so, so difficult to drive in the college game simply because as soon as you beat your man, he grabs you or arm-bars you off course. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the college game. It's worlds ahead of the NBA in terms of storylines, heart, crazy fun, etc, but the actual basketball product of the NBA is so much better right now. Watch Wisconsin play basketball (and they're a great offensive team) and then go watch Golden State, the Atlanta Hawks, or San Antonio. It's totally different, and not just because they have superior players.