A reminder of why the midrange game is dead.

[Cowtown]

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)

There ya go. Coaches coach to the higher percentage, using the skill sets their teams have. I can't grow a 7 footer, not even one. But I can damn sure teach about 7 out of 12 kids to be good form shooters from the line where it is, and run an offense designed to free up one or more of them.

But be careful what you ask for, you might just get it. If you effectively cut down on the three point shot, two things (if not more) will certainly occur: coaches will shift philosophy back to pounding the ball inside resulting in more fouls, and more foul shots. Defenses will again "pack the lane." I much prefer run-and-gun track meets to half-court slugfests and free throw tournaments. For if anyone thinks there's too much contact now and referees are too inconsistent in how they handle it, like the song says, "B-b-b-baby, you ain't seen n-n-n-nothing yet." Second, effective 3 point shooters will become as rare as dominant low-post scorers, placing a premium on those positions, weighting games in favor of those who have one or the other. If somebody manages to acquire some of both, you get a Kentucky-effect, where conference and national championships become less a contest than a coronation. Just IMHO.

 

[Knicks411]

Presented without comment, the link below has what looks to be the same chart for the NBA; its from 2012 fwiw.
http://gizmodo.com/5892424/five-years-of-every-nba-shot-attempt-visualized

I think offensive efficiency today is higher than it's ever been in college hoops (or at least close to it's height), there are just so many fewer possessions

 

[Cowtown]

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.

Fair enough, and some good points. However consider that there are 330 players in the NBA, the majority of whom are among the finest athletes from all over the world. Some of them are highly specialized in a few skills, and have devoted their lives to cultivating and applying their skills. In college ball in the US, there are approx. 13,000 players in Div I, II III and the NAIA. And I haven't tried to approximate the JUCO's. There's an attendant spread in the skill sets in college ball, meaning there's no reasonable way to compare the two games. And worse, every year about 40 of the best players from the NCAA leave the college ranks to go to the NBA. There's only one Kentucky and a handful of Wisconsin-like teams out there. Next year's NCAA will be very different, but the NBA won't change much, because of the flow of the relatively few superior players. Just IMHO.

 

[CusefanATL]

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.

The efficiency is definitely going to be lower because it is worth 1 less point and is a minimally better percentage.

Its the same reason the 5 footer is green but the 3 pt line is much warmer. There is no death of the 5 footer.

The graphic is misleading on the "death" of the mid range shot. That comment may be correct, but the graph doesn't prove it.

And FYI, if they use 2 points for 3 pointers on the scale - that area would be green as well. same amount of shots, same percentage and the shots are going up worth 3 points in the game - just for this calculation making those 3 pointers worth 2.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

I'm with RF2044 on this one. Players today only practice the 3-point shot. That's why their percentages are higher behind the stripe. If they spent nearly as much time shooting foul shots and jumpers from the foul line, you would see their shooting percentages would be much higher. Heck, even this old man is guilty of that. I know lots of Bosnian guys up here who are automatic from 3 (there's a reason we call it the Bosnian lay-up) but miss much more frequently just a foot or two inside the line. Muscle memory is very powerful.

This is a chicken and egg thing.

 

[CusefanATL]

I'm with RF2044 on this one. Players today only practice the 3-point shot. That's why their percentages are higher behind the stripe. If they spent nearly as much time shooting foul shots and jumpers from the foul line, you would see their shooting percentages would be much higher. Heck, even this old man is guilty of that. I know lots of Bosnian guys up here who are automatic from 3 (there's a reason we call it the Bosnian lay-up) but miss much more frequently just a foot or two inside the line. Muscle memory is very powerful.

This is a chicken and egg thing.

This graph doesnt show percentages though. It is efficiency which is percentage and value together.

lets say you hit 4/10 3's = 12 points

you would have to hit 6/10 12 footers = 12 points

percentage is 50% higher (60% vs 40%) but the efficiency is the exact same.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

This graph doesnt show percentages though. It is efficiency which is percentage and value together.

lets say you hit 4/10 3's = 12 points

you would have to hit 6/10 12 footers = 12 points

percentage is 50% higher (60% vs 40%) but the efficiency is the exact same.

I understand that. Just talking about his other points about why this is happening.

 

[Brooky03]

What's not factored in is the way in which these shots are taken. Presumably, midrange shots are contested much more than 3pt shots because a lot of midrange jumpers/floaters are taken outside the rhythm of the offense or in late shot clock situations. A skilled midrange shooter could certainly prosper if he or the offense actively seeks out open midrange looks.

The argument that the midrange game is dead seems accurate, in that it's not a part of offensive strategies and a lot of the guys who put up shots in that range probably shouldn't. However, this shouldn't lead to the incorrect assumption that a good midrange player should attempt to alter his game to shoot more 3's or drive to the rim more often because they're supposedly more efficient shots.

Carmelo Anthony isn't the only example of an excellent midrange player, but he's the model that young players could follow. Obviously, he can score from anywhere on the court, but if you had a contest between a version of Melo that only shot midrange jumpers vs. a Melo who only shot 3 pointers, I'd put my money on the midrange Melo.

Having a good midrange jumper also opens up a lot more driving opportunities and gives you the benefit of being able to shoot 'your shot' whenever you want (provided you have the necessary height).

 

[Millhouse]

What's not factored in is the way in which these shots are taken. Presumably, midrange shots are contested much more than 3pt shots because a lot of midrange jumpers/floaters are taken outside the rhythm of the offense or in late shot clock violations. A skilled midrange shooter could certainly prosper if he or the offense actively seeks out open midrange looks.

The argument that the midrange game is dead seems accurate, in that it's not a part of offensive strategies and a lot of the guys who put up shots in that range probably shouldn't. However, this shouldn't lead to the incorrect assumption that a good midrange player should attempt to alter his game to shoot more 3's or drive to the rim more often because they're supposedly more efficient shots.

Carmelo Anthony isn't the only example of an excellent midrange player, but he's the model that young players could follow. Obviously, he can score from anywhere on the court, but if you had a contest between a version of Melo that only shot midrange jumpers vs. a Melo who only shot 3 pointers, I'd put my money on the midrange Melo.

Having a good midrange jumper also opens up a lot more driving opportunities and gives you the benefit of being able to shoot 'your shot' whenever you want (provided you have the necessary height).

in the nba, everyone can shoot so there's not a big tradeoff, might as well shoot from 3, everyone is so great.

in college there aren't that many guys like CJ fair who will go by you and dunk if you challenge that mid range shot too hard. in college the tradeoff is the other way, if you're bad from 2 and bad from 3, be bad from 3.

 

[Brooky03]

in the nba, everyone can shoot so there's not a big tradeoff, might as well shoot from 3, everyone is so great.

in college there aren't that many guys like CJ fair who will go by you and dunk if you challenge that mid range shot too hard. in college the tradeoff is the other way, if you're bad from 2 and bad from 3, be bad from 3.

There are also players who have a good shooting stroke but struggle when they try to push their range to the 3pt line. For these guys, I'd coach them to work on ways to get open midrange looks more than 'shoe-horning' a 3pt shot into their game.

 

[Millhouse]

There are also players who have a good shooting stroke but struggle when they try to push their range to the 3pt line. For these guys, I'd coach them to work on ways to get open midrange looks more than 'shoe-horning' a 3pt shot into their game.

that's where i disagree, there aren't that many of those

 

[Brooky03]

that's where i disagree, there aren't that many of those

I agree, there aren't a lot of guys like this. But for for the 30 or so in college ball any given year (I'm guessing obviously), it would be to their benefit to continue to improve their midrange game instead of possibly trying to reinvent what they do on offense.

 

[NYCorange]

Carmelo Anthony isn't the only example of an excellent midrange player, but he's the model that young players could follow. Obviously, he can score from anywhere on the court, but if you had a contest between a version of Melo that only shot midrange jumpers vs. a Melo who only shot 3 pointers, I'd put my money on the midrange Melo.

Look, I'm a huge Melo fan, but only a little analysis can prove the Melo would be better off ditching some of his contested midrange jumpers for 3s. Take 2013-2014 for example, perhaps his most impressive statistical year. He shot 47% on 2p shots. These include shots at the rim and shots from the midrange. I'd assume that he's more efficient at the rim, but we'll be generous and say he hits on 47% of his midrange. Cool, good mark. He also happened to shoot 40% on 3s that year with a large volume taken. 3s are worth 1.5x more than 2s, so his effective field goal percentage on 3s was 60%. that's 13% better than his excellent 2pt fg%.

 

[Brooky03]

Look, I'm a huge Melo fan, but only a little analysis can prove the Melo would be better off ditching some of his contested midrange jumpers for 3s. Take 2013-2014 for example, perhaps his most impressive statistical year. He shot 47% on 2p shots. These include shots at the rim and shots from the midrange. I'd assume that he's more efficient at the rim, but we'll be generous and say he hits on 47% of his midrange. Cool, good mark. He also happened to shoot 40% on 3s that year with a large volume taken. 3s are worth 1.5x more than 2s, so his effective field goal percentage on 3s was 60%. that's 13% better than his excellent 2pt fg%.

I didn't realize his 3pt percentage had creeped up so high.

I was thinking of Melo in the low-mid 30% range. My thought process is that in any given game he'd be between 40 and 50% from midrange. I was thinking his 3 point percentage would fluctuate between high 20's and mid 30's.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Look, I'm a huge Melo fan, but only a little analysis can prove the Melo would be better off ditching some of his contested midrange jumpers for 3s. Take 2013-2014 for example, perhaps his most impressive statistical year. He shot 47% on 2p shots. These include shots at the rim and shots from the midrange. I'd assume that he's more efficient at the rim, but we'll be generous and say he hits on 47% of his midrange. Cool, good mark. He also happened to shoot 40% on 3s that year with a large volume taken. 3s are worth 1.5x more than 2s, so his effective field goal percentage on 3s was 60%. that's 13% better than his excellent 2pt fg%.

Great post. If you are a 40 percent three point shooter, you need to shoot 60 % from "midrange"to justify shooting a higher volume of "midrange 2's" I know the data isn't available, but its hard for me to believe that many players have shot 60% from 5-20 feet in their career.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Great post. If you are a 40 percent three point shooter, you need to shoot 60 % from "midrange"to justify shooting a higher volume of "midrange 2's" I know the data isn't available, but its hard for me to believe that many players have shot 60% from 5-20 feet in their career.

I wonder how much more often you go to the foul line when comparing 3 pointers and mid-range 2 pointers. Or if there is a difference.

 

[jgeorge322]

i think a better way to represent the data is percentage of made shots. i bet the % of so called midrange shots is close to what the 3p% is. however, when youre using a point per shot stat, since the 3p is worth 150% more, it is the more efficient shot.

 

[Czar]

i think a better way to represent the data is percentage of made shots. i bet the % of so called midrange shots is close to what the 3p% is. however, when youre using a point per shot stat, since the 3p is worth 150% more, it is the more efficient shot.

How is that better?

 

[Ringostar57]

Calvin Murphy was the best quickest 15 foot jump shooter off of the dribble ever.

 

[jgeorge322]

How is that better?

I shouldnt have said better. Id like to know if players shoot higher percentages from behind the 3p line v long 2. The graph isnt surprising if you take into account the 3p is worth 50% more.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

I shouldnt have said better. Id like to know if players shoot higher percentages from behind the 3p line v long 2

I'd guess yes. I've seen it. There's a mental aspect that comes into play as well.

 

[OrangeDW]

The more the shot selection resembles that of a game of NBA Jam, the more the game trends towards the direction of completely sucking.

 

[Quazzum69]

 

[SWC75]

The usual points:

- Individual players should do what they do best. Kaleb Jospeh is a good shooter from 15 feet, a bad one from 20 feet. It doesn't matter what Steph Curry or Klay Thompson does.

- For that reason, the argument that players should be taking three point jumpers instead of two point jumpers applies more to the NBA than college. There are more Step Currys in the NBA, more Kaleb Josephs in college.

- Players may be better at the three pointer and worse at the 2 pointers because that's how they practice. If you practice the 12 foot jumper from a particular spots, you'll get good at it. This generation of players has been taught to jack up treys or drive to the basket to score because of charts like the above. Naturally, they are better at that.

- It still produces an ugly game where most moves are vertical- toward the basket and into the teeth of the defense- rather than horizontal, where you move or pass the ball back and forth more to get defensive players moving and create some holes in the defense.

- I like the point above that you are more likely to draw fouls inside the arc than outside of it.

- You are also going to produce more rebounds from three point range, even if the shot is more efficient. And the defensive team gets most of the rebounds.

- If the medium range jumper is regarded as inefficient, defenses are not going to defend it, making for more open shots. Look at All those shots Tyler Roberson missed from 10 feet. he didn't miss because he was being guarded there. If he can ever make that shot, it will be a huge weapon for him. Should he dribble it out to the three point line and try it from there because of some chart?

Have the guys who are good at shooting from three points do that. Have the guys who are good at taking it to the hole do that. Have the other guys see what they could do in the middle. And anyone could improve his game with a good pull-up jumper.

 

[SWC75]

that's where i disagree, there aren't that many of those

They all seem to be playing for us.