Why the lost art is lost.

[SWC75]

SI has an article on the lost art of the 2 point jump shot and why it's lost:
http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/02/25/ap-bkc-vanishing-mid-range-game?xid=nl_siextra

Notre Dame and Indiana are among the schools supposedly proving the value of the modern concept. I still feel that a two pointer than goes in is worth more than a three pointer that doesn't. I think Trevor Cooney would score more points if three point attempts were only about half his shots at most, (presently they are 62%). Last night he was 1 for 6 from three point range and 4 for 5 from two point range. Not only are they shorter shots but the defense is so used to guarding the paint and the arc that the "twilight zone" in between is left open. To get a three-pointer you position yourself on the arc. To get a lay-up or dunk, you have to drive through the defense. it creates a more static "vertical" game that lends itself to charge-block collisions on the way to the basket and scrambles for long rebounds. To set up a two point jumper, more horizontal movement is needed and more passing among the players. I think it creates a better game.

I've seen stats presented that suggest that I'm wrong, that beyond the arc or above the rim basketball is the most efficient and that's certainly what the article suggests. I just don't quite buy it.

 

[Czar]

SI has an article on the lost art of the 2 point jump shot and why it's lost:
http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/02/25/ap-bkc-vanishing-mid-range-game?xid=nl_siextra

Notre Dame and Indiana are among the schools supposedly proving the value of the modern concept. I still feel that a two pointer than goes in is worth more than a three pointer that doesn't. I think Trevor Cooney would score more points if three point attempts were only about half his shots at most, (presently they are 62%). Last night he was 1 for 6 from three point range and 4 for 5 from two point range. Not only are they shorter shots but the defense is so used to guarding the paint and the arc that the "twilight zone" in between is left open. To get a three-pointer you position yourself on the arc. To get a lay-up or dunk, you have to drive through the defense. it creates a more static "vertical" game that lends itself to charge-block collisions on the way to the basket and scrambles for long rebounds. To set up a two point jumper, more horizontal movement is needed and more passing among the players. I think it creates a better game.

I've seen stats presented that suggest that I'm wrong, that beyond the arc or above the rim basketball is the most efficient and that's certainly what the article suggests. I just don't quite buy it.

Don't buy it, why? The numbers bare that out. Points per attempt, you're best off either shooting inside 6 feet, or from 3. Long 2's are garbage shots, barely easier than 3's, and worth much, much less. Yeah, you say that about Trevor because he's shooting below the threshold for 3pt shooters (33%, which would translate to a 50% 2pt shooter)

 

[skurey]

I think you have a point but 3>2 is all it really comes down to.

 

[manleyzoo]

I had this very discussion last night with my longtime friend Longtimefan, himself a veritable compendium of all things college hoop. The gist of my argument was the 1975 and 1976 Indiana teams, the latter of which was the last undefeated team (until maybe this year) although the former may have been a better team, would have annihilated most of the championship teams of the three-point era for this very reason: their offensive efficiency shooting the 15 foot jumper would have ground down any of the high flyers of this era, and their ability to defend the three-point line would have shut down anyone no matter the percentage they shot from the line.

 

[Toga]

I had this very discussion last night with my longtime friend Longtimefan, himself a veritable compendium of all things college hoop. The gist of my argument was the 1975 and 1976 Indiana teams, the latter of which was the last undefeated team (until maybe this year) although the former may have been a better team, would have annihilated most of the championship teams of the three-point era for this very reason: their offensive efficiency shooting the 15 foot jumper would have ground down any of the high flyers of this era, and their ability to defend the three-point line would have shut down anyone no matter the percentage they shot from the line.

and then you have the underutilized bank shot.
http://www.sciencecodex.com/the_physics_of_bank_shots

 

[OttoMets]

and then you have the underutilized bank shot.
http://www.sciencecodex.com/the_physics_of_bank_shots

Yeah, this is one that frustrates me to no end. I wish Syracuse players used the glass better. Roberson does sometimes. That's about it.

 

[SBU72]

Don't buy it, why? The numbers bare that out. Points per attempt, you're best off either shooting inside 6 feet, or from 3. Long 2's are garbage shots, barely easier than 3's, and worth much, much less. Yeah, you say that about Trevor because he's shooting below the threshold for 3pt shooters (33%, which would translate to a 50% 2pt shooter)

If you think about the 2 pt shot, it sort of makes sense. Shots in the 7 to 12 ft range are either taken by tall forwards who are less skilled or confident with a jump shot (think Roberson) or guards who then have perhaps taller help defenders guarding the shot making it harder. This could be reducing the percentages.

 

[Knicks411]

If you think about the 2 pt shot, it sort of makes sense. Shots in the 7 to 12 ft range are either taken by tall forwards who are less skilled or confident with a jump shot (think Roberson) or guards who then have perhaps taller help defenders guarding the shot making it harder. This could be reducing the percentages.

Even the best shooters though don't shoot a great percentage from mid-range though. Steph Curry is pretty much the best shooter on the planet; from 3-10 feet his career % is 40.7%, from 10-16 feet he's at 44.9%, and from 16-23 he's at 46.7%. Those aren't terrible, but he's essentially the same (43.4%) from 3 point range and you get an extra point.

People talk about Melo and his mid range game, for his career he's below 40% from 3-10 and 10-16 feet, and 41.2% from 16-23. 34.5% from 3. He shoots a better percentage from 3 point range than from 3-10 feet.

 

[AZOrange]

Even the best shooters though don't shoot a great percentage from mid-range though. Steph Curry is pretty much the best shooter on the planet; from 3-10 feet his career % is 40.7%, from 10-16 feet he's at 44.9%, and from 16-23 he's at 46.7%. Those aren't terrible, but he's essentially the same (43.4%) from 3 point range and you get an extra point. People talk about Melo and his mid range game, for his career he's below 40% from 3-10 and 10-16 feet, and 41.2% from 16-23. 34.5% from 3. He shoots a better percentage from 3 point range than from 3-10 feet.

You get your Shizzle blocked in there close...

 

[Knicks411]

You get your Shizzle blocked in there close...

Yeah the 3-10 feet isn't a great split for this. (But also a reason to avoid shooting from those ranges, since shots are more likely to be blocked) 10-16 and 16-23 work just as well though.

 

[stuckinbig11]

My shooting stroke changed from beyond about 17 feet, so I was a lousy shooter from distance and never attempted them. Players should stay in their comfort zone.

 

[MCC]

I think you have a point but 3>2 is all it really comes down to.

It appears you have a point as well Mssr. Skurey.

 

[Toga]

Another (IMO) underutilized shot is the step back 12 footer. Pretty easy shot to get off - you can square up - don't have to think about the shot - and it's only 12 feet.

 

[SUMBA]

I think you have a point but 3>2 is all it really comes down to.

I respectfully disagree with this. It comes down to points per shot. There are a lot of players in today's game that shoot 33 1/3% from behind the arc. On average, this produces 1 point per shot. In order to produce the same 1 point per shot in the mid range game, a player would have to shoot 50.0%. Very few can equal this percentage in the mid range game.

Statistically, you should only shoot a 2 point shot when the percentage is higher than 50.0%. These high percentage shots are typically down low with many being right under the basket. That explains why the college game has evolved into a shoot a three or jam it down low game. The only way to change this is to make three point baskets more difficult by increasing the distance. If that were to be done, the mid range game would make a comeback in a hurry.

 

[skurey]

The points per shot are better because 3>2. I don't think we really disagree.

 

[SUMBA]

The points per shot are better because 3>2. I don't think we really disagree.

I only had seven years of college, but I agree that 3>2. What I respectfully (mods pls take note!) disagree with is that is ALL that it comes down to as you stated in your original post. It has to do with percentage of made shots AND the number of points that the shot accrues on the scoreboard.

If the three point barrier were half court and the expected conversion rate was 10-15%, the only time a team would attempt such a shot would be with time running out down 3 or less on the scoreboard. But 3 would still be more than 2.

 

[Brooky03]

Anybody have a shot chart handy for Kaleb Joseph?

I bet $5 he shoots a higher percentage from outside 6 feet but inside the arc than he does either outside the arc or within 6 feet. I'm not trying to prove anything about midrange jumpers being useful or not, I just wanted to point out that he has one of the most potent pull-up mid-range jumpers I've seen.

 

[SWC75]

Pitt beat us because they had 14 points in what I call the "twilight zone" (between the paint and the arc) to our 2. Notre Dame tired to beat us with three pointers and went 3 for 22. Just two games, I know but those stats were important.

I agree it depends on the player. If a guy is a really good three point shooter there may be little difference in percentage between the 2 and the 3. But guys like Joseph are clearly better inside the arc. 3 is more than 2 but 2 is more than 0.

But my biggest points are two things the stats don't show. Because of those stats, defenses are geared to stop the 3 and the drive to the basket. Often the space between is more open than inside or far outside. Then there's my point about vertical basketball- nothing but three pointers and drives to the basket vs. horizontal basketball, where you move around and pass the ball around looking for an open spot, it gets the defenders moving following both the offensive players and thew ball. I think it opens up the game more. Our all-time leading scorer, Lawrence Moten played to just get open shots. I think we need more players like him. It makes for a better game. Ask yourself if basketball was better in his day than it is now. I think you'd have to answer "yes".

I like numbers because they provide an objective foundation for our discussions but the current state of basketball shows what can happen if you rely on the numbers exclusively.

 

[dollarbill44]

Pitt beat us because they had 14 points in what I call the "twilight zone" (between the paint and the arc) to our 2. Notre Dame tired to beat us with three pointers and went 3 for 22. Just two games, I know but those stats were important.

I agree it depends on the player. If a guy is a really good three point shooter there may be little difference in percentage between the 2 and the 3. But guys like Joseph are clearly better inside the arc. 3 is more than 2 but 2 is more than 0.

But my biggest points are two things the stats don't show. Because of those stats, defenses are geared to stop the 3 and the drive to the basket. Often the space between is more open than inside or far outside. Then there's my point about vertical basketball- nothing but three pointers and drives to the basket vs. horizontal basketball, where you move around and pass the ball around looking for an open spot, it gets the defenders moving following both the offensive players and thew ball. I think it opens up the game more. Our all-time leading scorer, Lawrence Moten played to just get open shots. I think we need more players like him. It makes for a better game. Ask yourself if basketball was better in his day than it is now. I think you'd have to answer "yes".

I like numbers because they provide an objective foundation for our discussions but the current state of basketball shows what can happen if you rely on the numbers exclusively.

I was thinking this exact thing as I was reading through this thread. I agree with everything you've said above. What I think is lost in the arguments for more 3s than 2s is that a large percentage of players would be a lot more efficient if they worked more on their 12-15 foot jumpers. Most teams who struggle against our zone (statistically speaking that is roughly 75%) don't have a 6'7 - 6'9" guy who can make the jumper from the elbows. Pitt did.

 

[Knicks411]

Our all-time leading scorer, Lawrence Moten played to just get open shots. I think we need more players like him. It makes for a better game. Ask yourself if basketball was better in his day than it is now. I think you'd have to answer "yes".

college or pro? I think the NBA game is better than it was 20 years ago. But that's me.

I think you shouldn't abandon any part of the court, you want the defense to be aware of everything, but the mid range jumper just isn't as efficient as other shots on the court. It's unavoidable.

 

[Millhouse]

SI has an article on the lost art of the 2 point jump shot and why it's lost:
http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/02/25/ap-bkc-vanishing-mid-range-game?xid=nl_siextra

Notre Dame and Indiana are among the schools supposedly proving the value of the modern concept. I still feel that a two pointer than goes in is worth more than a three pointer that doesn't. I think Trevor Cooney would score more points if three point attempts were only about half his shots at most, (presently they are 62%). Last night he was 1 for 6 from three point range and 4 for 5 from two point range. Not only are they shorter shots but the defense is so used to guarding the paint and the arc that the "twilight zone" in between is left open. To get a three-pointer you position yourself on the arc. To get a lay-up or dunk, you have to drive through the defense. it creates a more static "vertical" game that lends itself to charge-block collisions on the way to the basket and scrambles for long rebounds. To set up a two point jumper, more horizontal movement is needed and more passing among the players. I think it creates a better game.

I've seen stats presented that suggest that I'm wrong, that beyond the arc or above the rim basketball is the most efficient and that's certainly what the article suggests. I just don't quite buy it.

i think your assumption that mid range jumpers means there's more passing is wrong

 

[Millhouse]

shooting percentage is not as strongly correlated with distance from the hoop as the mid range jump shot proponents would want

corner threes go in at pretty close to the same rate as elbow jumpers

that d league team that takes the 3s and layups strategy to the extreme is the most efficient on offense, or at least they were

if you have a guy that can make that mid range shot, great! everyone else will benefit as the defense has to guard more

but if you don't have that guy, trying to take those shots isn't going to help anything

the teams that will end up being great are the teams that hit those midrange shots but that will fool people into thinking that everyone should do it

this is all in the NBA. college stats stink. it could be that college teams are so bad at shooting from anywhere that no strategy looks good

 

[Cusefan0307]

They probably don't have the numbers available, but I imagine that the overall shooting percentage of 2 point shots made from 15-18 feet have probably declined as the three pointer has become more popular over time. Everyone practices threes now. Not as many players practice the 15-18 footer. If you don't practice it, you won't be good at it.

The game now has been so influenced by analytics, some guys like Kevin Mchale don't want their players to shoot anything but shots at the rim, threes, or free throws. When I played in high school, and still when i play pickup, I've always been really good at the shot from 15-18 feet. I always thought shooting from three was too far out for me, but then again i never really practiced it.

Naturally if you practiced the 15-18 footer as much as a three point shot, I think everyone would agree you would shoot a higher percentage from 15-18 than you would from 20 plus. Since the shot has been de-emphasized people don't practice it as much, and analytics tell you it's really a terrible shot. I'm not saying either side is wrong, I think we need to look at historical data before 2000 to see what shooting percentages were from 15-18 feet, and it's not available on basketball reference.

 

[Scooch]

Yeah, the math here is pretty unassailable. There's a reason why there's been a revolution in NBA analytics over the past decade that corresponds to the ever-declining amount of mid-range 2-pointers being taken. It's a terribly inefficient shot. That almost every NBA coach has bought into that should tell you something, since not all of those guys are big believers in analytics. But the case against mid-range 2s is about as open-and-shut as it gets.

 

[Millhouse]

They probably don't have the numbers available, but I imagine that the overall shooting percentage of 2 point shots made from 15-18 feet have probably declined as the three pointer has become more popular over time. Everyone practices threes now. Not as many players practice the 15-18 footer. If you don't practice it, you won't be good at it.

The game now has been so influenced by analytics, some guys like Kevin Mchale don't want their players to shoot anything but shots at the rim, threes, or free throws. When I played in high school, and still when i play pickup, I've always been really good at the shot from 15-18 feet. I always thought shooting from three was too far out for me, but then again i never really practiced it.

Naturally if you practiced the 15-18 footer as much as a three point shot, I think everyone would agree you would shoot a higher percentage from 15-18 than you would from 20 plus. Since the shot has been de-emphasized people don't practice it as much, and analytics tell you it's really a terrible shot. I'm not saying either side is wrong, I think we need to look at historical data before 2000 to see what shooting percentages were from 15-18 feet, and it's not available on basketball reference.

even though you might be better at shooting from 18 feet than 22 , you should probably just pass it to a big guy [sad trombone wawa]