It depends on how an opponent defends a player. A wide open shot from mid-range is a high quality shot if the player can knock down on a consistent basis. Just a few weeks ago, Bosh took Asik out of the game with his mid-range game. Aldridge's mid-range jump shots also gave Rockets trouble... If an opponent has to respect a player's mid-range game, the player can drive the lane more easily. It also depends on game situations. In close, late-game situation, it is more important to maximize the chance of tying/taking the lead than to maximize point per possession. An open shot from mid-range would be better than an open shot behind the arc, unless a player can make both at a similar percentage. Because the refs tend to swallow whistles in the final minute (unless you are a superstar) and the other team would definitely focus on defending the paint, I am not even sure whether a layup has a higher percentage than a mid-range jump shot in the final minute of a close game. On final possession, a player should also minimize the chance that the other team gets the ball back and takes the game winning shot. A step-back jump shot is usually a good option.
I agree that the primary goal on every possession is to get and take the best possible shot. But how do we define what this is? From a quantative analyst's perspective, "best shot" = highest expected value (EV). If a player takes a 24 footer, it may have only a 35% chance of going in. Sounds like a bad shot. One would also need to factor in that's its worth 3 points if it goes in and other things like (a) chances of that shot being offensive rebounded and resulting in second chance points, or (b) chances of the player drawing a foul on that shot. The EV would come out to be somewhere north of 1.05 points. Well, that's pretty much in the same vicinity of what an average NBA offense will produce per possession. So maybe its not such a bad shot. And, if you are forcing defenses to guard all the way to the 3-point line, that provides much more space for paint scores as well (much more difficult for a defender at the 3-point line to get to paint than it would be for a defender who's only standing 10-15 feet away from the basket). The natural question would be if there is any proof that taking proportionally fewer shots in the in-between range actually improves a team's offensive efficiency. In fact, there have been plenty of very successful offenses that relied heavily on scorers who excelled on mid-range shots. There is, however, a negative correlation (albeit fairly weak) between percentage of shots that are taken "in-between" and team's offensive efficiency if we look at team's over the last several seasons. In comparison, the correlation between this percentage and team's defensive efficiency is virtually negligible (as expected). Here is a correlation table (for all team since 06/07): %FGA %FGA +1.000 W-L% -0.098 SRS -0.109 <font style="background:#ffff66;color:black">Pace -0.256 ORtg -0.139 DRtg -0.010 eFG% -0.205</font> TOV% -0.076 ORB% +0.044 FT/FGA -0.047 I've highlighted a few which were interesting to me. None of these correlations are "statistically significant" (hard to find those when there are so many factors that go into a team being successful at a particular facet of the game), but they may reflect some general trends. They do seem to align with the perspective that shooting more 3s and more shots at the rim is better for an offense because those are more efficient shots in terms of EV. For me, it usually helps to look at this stuff in a more graphical way, so here are some plots: <table><tr><td></td><td></td><tr><td></td><td></td></tr></table> The first two are perhaps most relevant. I can't say there's crystal clear pattern there, but as a general observation teams that have taken a very high percentage of their shots in-between appear to have worse offenses and be more inefficient from the field compared to teams that take relatively few shots in-between. The relationship between this "in-between percentage" and defensive efficiency is virtually non-existent, as mentioned earlier. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, teams that play with pace seem more likely to shoot fewer "in-between" shots than teams that play a slow down, half-court style. Worth considering for a team that wants to make a deep run in the playoffs, since you typically need to have a strong half-court offense to be successful in the postseason. If you don't have the ability to effectively score "in-between", good defense that deny quick shots in transition will have an easier time getting stops.
Doesn't this give more credence to the power of 3 pointers? If Aldridge and Bosh can take 3s, they'd be even deadlier on offense to draw Asik onto the perimeter. The best example of this was Okur forcing Yao to defend Boozer in the Utah series. Screwed the Rockets defense through that mismatch. And FWIW, Portland fans HATE Aldridge shooting those jumpers. I visisted their boards for the Portland series in 2009. That was one of their biggest complaint about Aldridge, how he keeps settling for that low percentage jumper instead of posting up or getting to the basket.
I think the rockets would prefer to play in the post but does not have the personnel to do it. Really... who can they dump the ball into and count on getting them 2 points on 50% of the attempts?
We have so many Power Forwards that is full of potential it isn't even funny anymore. We could trade two of them to get a number one lottery pick. Then trade the other one to get a superstar and the lottery pick. That's how talented our PF's are. They are also full of potential. (-.-) If only we could use them to improve the bench. :grin: Anyway, DMo has a good back to court shot. Asik is learning and he is now dunking the ball. Morris and Jones can dunk. So many talented players, but only one could get the spot. How sad?
Mid-range game has been a lost art for years. Thanks to SportsCenter highlights, kids nowadays are only interested in long 3s or dunks. Didn't Sam Casell had some video to talk about how old school mid-range game is effective but lost, a few years back? I didn't know Rockets are "leading" this way, in such a wide margin. Thanks for the thread. But really, a high percentage mid-range jumper would do wonders to a player or a team. That was part of the reason why Scola was so effective and valuable for us. If our guards, especially Lin could add a decent "in-between" jumper, he would make his own life and team's life so much easier.
Notice the upward trend after Tmac-good analysis, interesting to note, sure Yao, n Hayes helped that stat, Landry and early scola as well
But Rockets are not getting many corner 3's, simply because those were normally from setup plays, with an inside presence for instance. Also, if attempted layups and long 3s are the only weapons you have or rely on, your opponents have a very easy time to defend you. Even efficient 3 point shooters would suffer, not to mention that Rockets' 3 pointers aren't that great to start with.
I agree. A versatile mid-range game may not be flashy or maybe not even valued by Morey-ball, but most importantly it is effective. It makes those layups and corner threes more available.
The bolded part is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a high percentage mid-range jumper. Anyone who could shoot such a shot would also be able to shoot 3s in a more efficient manner. Reggie Miller? Could shoot the 3. Ray Allen? Could shoot the 3. Kevin Martin? Could shoot the 3. As for Scola, he shot 43% on jumpers, which would be the equivalent of a 28.6% 3pt shooter. Do you know what territory is that? That's Charles Barkley 3pt shooting. So yes, for all the praises you give Scola for his shot, it's only slightly more productive than the Chuckster throwing up horrible 3s for no apparent reason a few times every game. We're talking about Charles FREAKING Barkley here. Antoine Walker, the absolute joke at Miami, was a more efficient jump shooter with his random, zany, crappy 3 point shooting. An example of a true stretch 4 would be Ryan Anderson, who shot only 38% from the floor. But had an eFG% of 53%. You can love Scola's jumper all you want, but I'll take Anderson's 3s every day of the week. That's why the Rockets want Morris at the 4 over the 3 right now, because he can knock down 3s.
someone tried to tell me rip hamilton was a detriment to his championship team when he was the leading scorer and now someone is talking about some scrub from the bobcats. Can someone look up durants shot selection stats im on my way to a computer
Durant shoots 43% on jumpers. But take into account 3s, equivalent of Hamilton making 50% of his jumpers.
Durvasa, awesome analysis as usual. I hate to ask for more, but you alluded to playoffs in your last post, so... Anyway to replicate the correlation analysis for just playoff teams, and for just playoff stats? Otherwise, for now, isn't the most we can get out of this analysis, on a macro level, that this in between percentage has very little correlation to anything? The further subdivision may be equally lacking in any sort of definitive "truths", but you never know?? Awesome stuff, even if not as awesomely enlightening yet
Having legitimate threats from mid-range is valuable to an offense, because it opens up opportunities for more efficient shots. Moreover, its pays to have offensive options that yield a high "floor percentage" (percentage of possessions ending in any kind of score). This is valuable when trying to protect a lead, or trying to erase a lead while the other team is struggling to score. I don't think that 25.2% number should be viewed as a "strength" of the team. It reflects a lack of a post-up option and that we like shooting lots of threes, which makes us a very streaky team. I think, for the personnel we have currently, it may be the right way to go. But ultimately, we'll need to acquire players or develop skills that allows for a more balanced offensive attack in terms of where the shots come from.
Shooting the mid range is very different from shooting the 3.Excellence at one does not equate to excellence at the other. Look at Dwayne Wade, Carl Malone, Ryan Anderson, Dirk. The mid range is usually an off the dribble, or post move back to the basket or pull up, contested shot. The 3 point is usually a spot up j. The distance is also a huge factor. There are too many variations of the mid range while the 3 is relatively simple to train for.
