A reminder of why the midrange game is dead.

[OrlandoCuse]

I'm I the only one that sees an alien holding a fireball in this graphic?

 

[two3zone]

I'm I the only one that sees an alien holding a fireball in this graphic?

Until you said something probably yes, but the second I read your post I totally see it.

 

[OrlandoCuse]

Until you said something probably yes, but the second I read your post I totally see it.

Once you see it you can't not see it. Alien mind games.

 

[Quazzum69]

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.

Good points. I think coaches/teams are getting lazier and less creative. Players are way more athletic now (drive and dunk) and have more resources to practice (really good shooters).

Coaches need to get more creative and bring more motion to get open midrange shots. They are "inefficient" because teams don't know how to get open shots inside the three point line unless it is within 5 feet of the basket. A ten foot jump shot is easier than a 30 foot shot - just need to get open.

 

[Dave85]

I'm I the only one that sees an alien holding a fireball in this graphic?

Well played sir, well played.

 

[Dave85]

Good points. I think coaches/teams are getting lazier and less creative. Players are way more athletic now (drive and dunk) and have more resources to practice (really good shooters).

Coaches need to get more creative and bring more motion to get open midrange shots. They are "inefficient" because teams don't know how to get open shots inside the three point line unless it is within 5 feet of the basket. A ten foot jump shot is easier than a 30 foot shot - just need to get open.

I totally agree with you. I think the midrange game is overlooked. A goood midrange game will allow a team to do well against a much taller team. Here's my theory on it. If the offense scores more points than the other team that's a good thing.

 

[skurey]

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.

Do you have stats to back this up? Meaning do you have stats showing a KJ shot from 15 feet results in more points than from 3?

- 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 are worse at shooting in college, agreed. They should probably shoot the shots that are worth more points then.

- 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.

Players and coaches realize 3s and layups are more efficient than mid range jumpers so yes they practice it. This is a good thing.

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.

There are too many different playing styles to generalize every single one of them. But I agree Syracuse's offense is ugly to watch. That's JB's fault.

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

Correct. But mid range is not more likely than 3 point shots.

- 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.

You are going to score more points from 3 point range. And the team that scores more points wins.

-

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?

It's easier to defend with 5 guys from 15 feet out than 5 guys from 23 feet out. It's all about spacing the defense. It's not like they leave every player open from 15 feet.

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.

The other guys can post up or pass out to the 3 point shooters.

 

[SWC75]

Do you have stats to back this up? Meaning do you have stats showing a KJ shot from 15 feet results in more points than from 3?



Players are worse at shooting in college, agreed. They should probably shoot the shots that are worth more points then.



Players and coaches realize 3s and layups are more efficient than mid range jumpers so yes they practice it. This is a good thing.



There are too many different playing styles to generalize every single one of them. But I agree Syracuse's offense is ugly to watch. That's JB's fault.



Correct. But mid range is not more likely than 3 point shots.



You are going to score more points from 3 point range. And the team that scores more points wins.

-

It's easier to defend with 5 guys from 15 feet out than 5 guys from 23 feet out. It's all about spacing the defense. It's not like they leave every player open from 15 feet.



The other guys can post up or pass out to the 3 point shooters.

I don't have stats on mid-range jump shots for Kaleb. I don't need them. I watched him all season. So did you. Are you going to argue that having Kaleb or Rob or Tyler shoot threes is better than them shooting from closer to the basket? Couldn't Trevor improve on those 1 for 10 nights by moving inside the arc for some shots.

Your other points hardly negate mine. Worse shooters should shoot from farther out? If players are better at shooting threes when they practice them they would also be better at shooting twos if they practice them. All of college basketball is ugly to watch, not just Syracuse. it seems to me concentrating on lower percentage shots is a big reason why. Do you have stats that show that players who shoot three point jumpers are as likely to get fouled as players who shoot two point jumpers? If so, then it's because the two point jumpers aren't being defended. The fact that a made three pointer counts more than a made two pointer doesn't counter my point about the rebounding. And there's no point in spacing the defense if you aren't going to take advantage of the spaces.

I'm not saying teams shouldn't shoot three pointers. I'm saying it should b e done by those who are good at it and those who aren't need to look for other shots. Even those who are could use their their three pointers to set up other shots they would make a higher percentage of. That's good basketball.

 

[skurey]

The point of spacing the defense is so you can open up the efficient two point shots, near the rim.

Not all of college basketball is ugly. Some teams actually move the ball and get open 3 point shots and they have players capable of making them. Yes it's less than the NBA but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to play the most efficient way.

Your point about rebounding doesn't mean anything. Like there is no argument you are presenting. So what if the other team gets more rebounds if you're scoring more points?

Why would you want good three point shooters taking more shots that result in less points? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Millhouse]

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.

I'm five ten. I am good at blocking shots by toddlers and making uncontested layups. Maybe I shouldn't shoot threes but it's moot because I will never see the floor.

And kaleb Joseph is not good from two anyway.

 

[Ringostar57]

In the 1960s you were a great foul shooter if you shot 90+ percent. Today 80+ . There were a lot of teams that flirted with 80 percent foul shooting. Can't name any today. The foul shot is a mid range unguarded shot 10 to 20 foot 2 point jump shots are falling at roughly 38 percent. It takes 50 per cent 2 point shooting to equal 33 percent 3 point shooting (3 for 6 2 point shots = 6 points) while (2 for 6 3 point shots=6 points) Everybody wants to be a three point shooter... So mid range suffers, close in shots suffer; nobody seems to know how make bank shots, close in skills suffer. Old days very few missed layups, today an epedemic when it comes to missed layups. Dunking and 3 point shooting skills are it. Wonder how a George Gervin would do today?

 

[skurey]

Defense was also terrible back in the good ole days

 

[Czar]

I don't have stats on mid-range jump shots for Kaleb. I don't need them. I watched him all season. So did you. Are you going to argue that having Kaleb or Rob or Tyler shoot threes is better than them shooting from closer to the basket? Couldn't Trevor improve on those 1 for 10 nights by moving inside the arc for some shots.

Your other points hardly negate mine. Worse shooters should shoot from farther out? If players are better at shooting threes when they practice them they would also be better at shooting twos if they practice them. All of college basketball is ugly to watch, not just Syracuse. it seems to me concentrating on lower percentage shots is a big reason why. Do you have stats that show that players who shoot three point jumpers are as likely to get fouled as players who shoot two point jumpers? If so, then it's because the two point jumpers aren't being defended. The fact that a made three pointer counts more than a made two pointer doesn't counter my point about the rebounding. And there's no point in spacing the defense if you aren't going to take advantage of the spaces.

I'm not saying teams shouldn't shoot three pointers. I'm saying it should b e done by those who are good at it and those who aren't need to look for other shots. Even those who are could use their their three pointers to set up other shots they would make a higher percentage of. That's good basketball.

Well, I did your work for you. Kaleb was 7-35 from 3, 27/48 at the rim, and 34/98 from "midrange" (this includes anything not a layup or dunk, so we're being super generous here).

So, breaking that down, Kaleb shot 56% at the rim. He shot 34% from mid range. With his 20% from 3, he is quite literally marginally more efficient from "mid-range" than he is from 3. Given how close it is he was just as well off shooting 3's as shooting long 2's.

 

[SWC75]

The point of spacing the defense is so you can open up the efficient two point shots, near the rim.

Not all of college basketball is ugly. Some teams actually move the ball and get open 3 point shots and they have players capable of making them. Yes it's less than the NBA but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to play the most efficient way.

Your point about rebounding doesn't mean anything. Like there is no argument you are presenting. So what if the other team gets more rebounds if you're scoring more points?

Why would you want good three point shooters taking more shots that result in less points? It doesn't make sense.

The rebounds give the other team more opportunities to score points. I want good three point shooters to shot three pointers. I wish we had some. But even they could be more versatile.

 

[SWC75]

Well, I did your work for you. Kaleb was 7-35 from 3, 27/48 at the rim, and 34/98 from "midrange" (this includes anything not a layup or dunk, so we're being super generous here).

So, breaking that down, Kaleb shot 56% at the rim. He shot 34% from mid range. With his 20% from 3, he is quite literally marginally more efficient from "mid-range" than he is from 3. Given how close it is he was just as well off shooting 3's as shooting long 2's.

You are generously including awkward floaters and contested jumpers in the paint. JB got furious with him in one presser and said he'd told him "You are not a three point shooter."

Hmmm... 98/35 X 7 = 20 threes made if he shot it 98 times from there. That's 60 points. 34 made twos X 2 = 68 points, with more trips to the line and fewer rebounds for the other team to grab. It would seem Kaleb is more efficient from inside the arc.

 

[SWC75]

I'm five ten. I am good at blocking shots by toddlers and making uncontested layups. Maybe I shouldn't shoot threes but it's moot because I will never see the floor.

And kaleb Joseph is not good from two anyway.

Two comparisons.

I'm sure that charts could be produced to show that more 50 yard passes produce more touchdowns than 10 yard passes, on average. Does that mean quarterbacks should be throwing every ball 50 yards? The strategical trend has been the opposite.

I'm also sure that chart would show that 400 foot drives produce more runs than 300 foot drives. Does that mean that every player in your line-up should be trying to hit the ball 400 feet? Maybe some of them should be hitting line drives, ground balls or even bunts.

Isn't it better to make the defense defend the whole field and tailor strategies to the skills of individual players than to use overall statistics to dictate what each indivdual player should be doing in every situation?

 

[Cusefannotindc]

The rebounds give the other team more opportunities to score points. I want good three point shooters to shot three pointers. I wish we had some. But even they could be more versatile.

I don't have 2015 data fully collected, but for the 2014 team, the splits of offensive vs defensive rebounds were almost identical for 2 point jumpers and 3 point shots. 40% offensive to 60% defensive. Assuming whichever team gets the rebound has an expected 1 point per possession, with this years teams 2pt Jumper % (34.5%) and 3pt % (30%), even factoring in more rebounds given up, a 3 point shot would have expected net points (expected SU points minus expected opponents points) of .76 while the 2pt jumper would have an expected net points of .58.

The point isn't that KJ should be taking 3s instead of long 2s, it's that he shouldn't be taking either. The team as a whole should be working to take shots with the highest expected return.

 

[Millhouse]

Two comparisons. I'm sure that charts could be produced to show that more 50 yard passes produce more touchdowns than 10 yard passes, on average. Does that mean quarterbacks should be throwing every ball 50 yards? The strategical trend has been the opposite. I'm also sure that chart would show that 400 foot drives produce more runs than 300 foot drives. Does that mean that every player in your line-up should be trying to hit the ball 400 feet? Maybe some of them should be hitting line drives, ground balls or even bunts. Isn't it better to make the defense defend the whole field and tailor strategies to the skills of individual players than to use overall statistics to dictate what each indivdual player should be doing in every situation?

You're sure?

 

[skurey]

I'm so sad. It's like when you learn Santa isn't real.

 

[SWC75]

I don't have 2015 data fully collected, but for the 2014 team, the splits of offensive vs defensive rebounds were almost identical for 2 point jumpers and 3 point shots. 40% offensive to 60% defensive. Assuming whichever team gets the rebound has an expected 1 point per possession, with this years teams 2pt Jumper % (34.5%) and 3pt % (30%), even factoring in more rebounds given up, a 3 point shot would have expected net points (expected SU points minus expected opponents points) of .76 while the 2pt jumper would have an expected net points of .58.

The point isn't that KJ should be taking 3s instead of long 2s, it's that he shouldn't be taking either. The team as a whole should be working to take shots with the highest expected return.

The team stats don't mean it's better for KJ to take 20 footers than 15 footers. If he was 7 for 35 from three and 34 for 98 from mid-range, he would have been 20 for 98 if those shots had been three pointers. That produces 8 fewer points. And if the other team got 60& of the additional 14 rebounds, that's at least 8 possessions and 8 more points. So it wouldn't help Kaleb to shoot from the arc because fo the team stat or some chart about how well all the players in the country shoot.

One more salvo before I move on to other things: Some years back I did an analysis of 20 years worth of SU stats, ranking the teams by winning percentage and then by every other stat I could think of. I them determined the average differential in the rankings to see which ranking more approximated the winning percentage ranking. This was the result:

- 2 point field goal percentage had an average differential ranking of 4.25

- Rebounding had an average differential ranking of 4.70

- Percentage of field goal attempts from three point range had an average differential ranking of 4.98

- Turnovers had an average differential ranking of 5.41

- Steals had an average differential ranking of 5.93

- 3 point field goal percentage had an average differential ranking of 6.14

- Blocks had an average differential ranking of 6.84

- Percentage of made field goals that were assisted had an average differential ranking of 8.27

The most important hing was to make and prevent two point shots. The next most important thing was rebounding the ball after a miss. The third most important thing was to force the other team to attempt three point shots, rather than two point shots. By looking at charts like the one that opened this threat and then insisting that your players shoot from three point range even if that's not what they are good at and insisting that your three point shooters just shoot from three point range and not use their range to set up other shots, you are playing into the hands of the other team.

And that, of course is the whole concept of the zone, which is why when I asked Jim Boeheim about this on his show, he agreed with me.

 

[NYCorange]

The most important hing was to make and prevent two point shots. The next most important thing was rebounding the ball after a miss. The third most important thing was to force the other team to attempt three point shots, rather than two point shots. By looking at charts like the one that opened this threat and then insisting that your players shoot from three point range even if that's not what they are good at and insisting that your three point shooters just shoot from three point range and not use their range to set up other shots, you are playing into the hands of the other team.

I agree with about 75% of what you're saying. Of course players should play to their strengths. Kaleb should not have shot more 3s this year. Currently he's a terrible 3 point shooter who's percentage from out there was actually boosted by banking in a couple. I also don't want Arinze Onuaku hoisting 3s. That would be a terrible strategy. Likewise, 2 point fg% does most strongly correlate to having a good offense (and a good defense is one that hols teams to poor 2pt %). Why? Because layups, even more than 3 point shots, are the most efficient shot in the game. The aforementioned Onuaku was a great offensive player for us because he made darn near every layup he attempted. But layups aren't the same as midrange shots. The best defenses in the NBA--especially the strong-side overload man-to-man schemes that just about every team is copying off of Tom Thibodeau--intentionally make long midrange shots the easiest to get by dropping the big man playing pick and roll defense down below the foul line. Why? Because they know that semi-open midrange shots, over time, will lead to an inefficient offense.

It's extremely important to both attempt and hit 3s in both the college and NBA game. The best way to do this, however, is not to force bad shooters to take 3s, but to recruit and develop players' 3 point shots. The midrange game shouldn't be completely neglected (especially with bigs like Roberson), but the 3 point shot should be prioritized over it in recruitment, development, and game planning.

As a final note, I'm gonna post the top 5 teams in 3 pointers attempted for the past 5 years in the NBA.

2014-2015: Houston, Portland, Cleveland, Golden State, LA Clippers
2013-2014: Houston, Atlanta, Portland, Phoenix, New York
2012-2013: New York, Houston, LA Lakers, Portland, Atlanta
2011-2012: Orlando, New York, New Jersey, Dallas, LA Clippers,
2010-2011: Orlando, New York, Houston, Phoenix, Dallas

Most of these teams were quite successful, and even better on offense. Of course, there are a few blips such as New Jersey in 2011-2012, which shows that it's not simply enough to take 3s, you also have to make a few. But overall, I think that one could make the plausible suggestion that taking 3 point shots is high correlated with winning.

 

[Millhouse]

I agree with about 75% of what you're saying. Of course players should play to their strengths. Kaleb should not have shot more 3s this year. Currently he's a terrible 3 point shooter who's percentage from out there was actually boosted by banking in a couple. I also don't want Arinze Onuaku hoisting 3s. That would be a terrible strategy. Likewise, 2 point fg% does most strongly correlate to having a good offense (and a good defense is one that hols teams to poor 2pt %). Why? Because layups, even more than 3 point shots, are the most efficient shot in the game. The aforementioned Onuaku was a great offensive player for us because he made darn near every layup he attempted. But layups aren't the same as midrange shots. The best defenses in the NBA--especially the strong-side overload man-to-man schemes that just about every team is copying off of Tom Thibodeau--intentionally make long midrange shots the easiest to get by dropping the big man playing pick and roll defense down below the foul line. Why? Because they know that semi-open midrange shots, over time, will lead to an inefficient offense.

It's extremely important to both attempt and hit 3s in both the college and NBA game. The best way to do this, however, is not to force bad shooters to take 3s, but to recruit and develop players' 3 point shots. The midrange game shouldn't be completely neglected (especially with bigs like Roberson), but the 3 point shot should be prioritized over it in recruitment, development, and game planning.

As a final note, I'm gonna post the top 5 teams in 3 pointers attempted for the past 5 years in the NBA.

2014-2015: Houston, Portland, Cleveland, Golden State, LA Clippers
2013-2014: Houston, Atlanta, Portland, Phoenix, New York
2012-2013: New York, Houston, LA Lakers, Portland, Atlanta
2011-2012: Orlando, New York, New Jersey, Dallas, LA Clippers,
2010-2011: Orlando, New York, Houston, Phoenix, Dallas

Most of these teams were quite successful, and even better on offense. Of course, there are a few blips such as New Jersey in 2011-2012, which shows that it's not simply enough to take 3s, you also have to make a few. But overall, I think that one could make the plausible suggestion that taking 3 point shots is high correlated with winning.

agree

in college since 2011, correlation between 3 point attempts and wins is 48%

correlation between made 3 pointers is 56%

the correlation between 3 pointers attempted and 3 point percentage is only 27%