Are we going to ignore that Harden's MidRange TurnAround Jumper is unstoppable?

Go look it up. As a team I counted 8 for 12 between the paint and 3 point line. Thats on my phone though so i could be off.

 

Paul is one of only a very select few in the league where mixing in the midrange isn’t a bad thing.

Harden is brilliant offensively but his mid range shooting isn’t elite.

 

That's like saying since Micheal Jordan was never really an elite three point shooter, he should've completely cut that part of his game out. Why is it so difficult to understand that sometimes you need to mix things up to avoid being totally predictable, to change the flow of the game, to take advantage of wide-open shots or mismatches, etc. Statistical averages are about general trends; it has nothing to do with what one should do in the last second of the game when you're down 1. If the opponent gives you wide open mid-range, then of course you should take that. It would be r****ded not to do so.

 

What if the opponent gives you the mid range shot every time, do you take mid range shots every posession?

It has been documented time and again, mid range shots are the worst shot in basketball. Entire defenses are plamned to give the opponent a mid range shot by taking away the 3 pt and packing the paint.

If you are dumb enough to keep taking the mid range shots judt because the opponent is giving them to you then you will lose the game, period.

 

It's a statistical anomaly they ain't gonna shoot 8 for 12 every game. Look up guys like Melo, Westbrick, Starbury and Rudy Gay the ones who take a lot of mid range shots always have low efficiency numbers, thats because it has been documented time and again the mid range shot is the worst shot in basketball. I have never seen an efficient mid range shooter and I have been watching since KG teamed up with Sprewell and Sam Casell.

 

No doubt. That's definitely an outlier. I was surprised they took so many.

 

no you shouldn't take them every single time because moreyball holds true when sample size is sufficiently large. In general, you should prioritize the three over two, but many people seem to confuse this statement with the other point that is often made regarding how sometimes making a shot in whichever way possible is more important than its efficiency value.

According to bbref, Harden is a career 42.2% from 10-16 feet and 37.8% from 16-24 feet, which is higher than his three point average (36.5%).
Because hitting 36.5% on threes generates more points than hitting 38~42% on twos, it just makes sense for Harden to take more threes than those long 2s. But when you're in a situation where making a single shot is of utmost importance - like when your team is in a funk and just can't buy a basket or is down by one at the last second - then you should be focusing on 38~42% > 36.5%, not their points per shot value.

 

There is only one instance where i would ever advocate a Harden mid range shot.

Clutch situation at the end of a game. Where the higher probability of the shot is more important than the higher return.

Example:

35% from 3 is more efficient than 45% from 2. The 35% 3pt shot is worth 1.05 pps whereas the 45% 2pt shot is only worth .90 pps .

Now while all game that is important, during a end of game clutch situation, the 45% outweighs the 35%.

I dont believe in mid range. But it has a place imo, just a very small place unless your elite at it, over 50%.

Which still isnt efficient enough to compete with an average 3pt shooter.

 

Problem is, he made shots during that 0 fer streak...

 

If your team is down ny 1 at the last sec and Harden takes a 42% chance to shoot what happens? Oh yeah 58% ie majority of the time he misses the shot and its a loss. He should be focusing on a drive to the basket instead of looking for a mid range shot.

If there is literally no other oppprtunity ok you take the mid range shot but that should only be the last resort and you don't put mid range shots in your gameplan at all. 42% on long twos is not a winning strategy.

 

1 what if the spurs are running you out of the 3pt line and a big is hanging at the rim and the refs wont call 3s violation nor foul at the rim?

 

Context is everything. Midrange shooters are "inefficient" because they create and force the issue. When nobody can create for themself you usually create midrange shot. 3pt shots are usually camping behind the line unless you are some sort of Steph or Harden. Look up Michael Jordan if you need proof for midrange lol

 

so what you're telling me is that if harden were to substitute 4 of his 11 3pt attempts with 4 midrange attempts our offense would suffer how much points during one single game ?
0.6 points?

I would gladly give up 0.6 points per game if that would make me

1 more unpredictable

2 boosted my 3pt and layups percentages because i would get more open looks because defense would be less certain what will i do and thus would have a harder time guarding me leaving me more open

3 ENERGY ASPECT when you are tired layups and 3s percentages drop and even when you are tired its not that hard to fire a midrange shot while drives and 3s are harder to shoot when you are tired and thus become less efficient

4 midrange may be a more efficient shot than a layup because layups statistics is skewed toward efficiency because stats dont account for all the turnovers and blocked shots at the rim or wannabe layups that become turnovers while players are driving in the crowded lane,

5 REFS ASPECT also stat sheets doesnt account for refs trying to screw you, its easier for them to do so on drives/layups

6 MENTAL ASPECT while midrange is less efficient in vacuum it is a shot that keeps the scoreboard moving, its calming steady scoring contribution would prevent mental breakdowns that led to rockets losing so many games in the past

7 anyone arguing against midrange for the sake of mythical efficiency is paradoxically arguing for less efficient shots
because that very same inefficient midrange can boost your other 'efficient' shots percentages across the board, making your layups and 3s percentages even more efficient because you are less predictable, harder to guard and youll get more open looks

 

Stick with it. Continue running PnR and screens eventually open 3s will show up. Keep attacking the rim because eventually they will foul or get called for a violation.

 

I understand that the mid-range is a less effective shot than a three or layup in isolation, but it has its place (even in our offense):

1. When a team is out of rhythm and needs a bucket. I know these are professionals, but during a stretch like 0-27, when you are bricking 3s and the refs aren’t calling anything at the rim, it is extremely valuable to be able to create offense elsewhere

2. End of game situations, where greater likelihood of scoring trumps shot efficiency. @BigMaloe talked about this above.

3. Harden and Paul’s games are special because they are able to keep the defense on its toes. They rock the defender until he is out of position, then attack. A credible mid-range threat is another tool they have to prevent the defense from predicting their next move, which helps open up the threes and layups that we want them taking


By no means am I saying move away from the offense that made us great. Just that having another tool at their disposal can help our offense score at critical junctions and make Harden and Paul even more unpredictable on offense

 

For a player like Harden, no option should be off the table.

 

how that worked for the rockets in 2017 series vs spurs?

 

You are absolutely correct, Morey's goal is to take efficient shots. Chis Paul is one 5 or 6 guys that are even remotely efficient from midrange. Morey is fine with him taking those shots.

Playing against your opponent is fine, but you're making the assumption that Harden posting up (even against a smaller player) is efficient. That's not neccessarily true.

 

The simple answer is because even when we are shooting badly from behind the arc, we're still more efficient that we are from midrange. Midrange is an inefficient shot compared to a 3 pointer and we shoot it at 42%. That's not a recipe for success.

Realize that we do take other shots besides 3 pointers, they're just not midrange shots. Our midrange percentage is 42%. That's equivilent to 28% on 3s. Last year between the regular season and playoffs, we played 99 games. In those 99 games we shot below 28% a total of 5 times. As those numbers indicate, it's rare for us to shoot that poorly.

In those 5 games where we shot below 28% on 3s, our shooting was defnitely off. Would we have even shot our 42% average on midranges those games? There's a good possibility that we wouldn't have. Regardless, 95% of the games we still shot the 3 more efficiently than our midrange average.

Posters are acting like we missed 27 consecutive shots , all 3s and just kept shooting them. We did miss 27 consecutive 3s , That's unbelievable but there were other 2 point shots mixed in there including some makes.

Could we have a game where we shoot a bunch of midrange and we shoot an incredible percentage? Yes, it's possible but it's highly unlikely. The Rockets aren't going to switch their strategy in the hope that a long shot exception occurs this game. That's just poor strategy.

There's a reason that every team in the league is taking way more threes than before and have reduced midrange shots. If GSW could generate more open 3s, shoot more FTs or get to the basket more, then they would. Fortunately for us, they can't so they're forced to take some midrange shots and that is the equalizer for us. Rocket fans should hope that GSW take as many midrange shots as possible.