The Bucks scored a grand total of 20 points from midrange in the 4th quarter of their four wins in last years finals. They shot 40% from midrange in those 4th quarters. In the 4th quarters of their wins in last years finals, they scored 106 pts on 45.3% shooting on 3 pointers. For the entire playoffs, the Bucks shot 40% from midrange. In the 4th quarters they shot 38.4% from midrange. They didn't win because they shot midrange. They won because of defense and they shot the 3 extremely well in the 4th quarter of their wins. 4th Quarter in wins - 106 pts from 3 and 20 pts from midrange. Their 4th quarter 3pt% (45.3%) was actually higher than their midrange percentage (40.0%). Looks like they shot the 3 really well in the 4th. Maybe they weren't tired.
I don’t mind midrange mixed in, specially if you’re efficient at it. Bucks took 2669 3PA that season, midrange 993
midrange keeps a defense honest.....the threat will help open up the lane for easier layups.....vs teams just sitting in paint and covering 3pt line
Yesterday Harden had an open middy and pulled it back out and the possession was done. If teams basically know they don't have to defend you there doesn't it make every other shot harder?
Mid range has always been fine if a player if good enough at it. Chris Paul always had a green light from Morey to take mid-range shots because he was automatic from there. Jalen Green is looking like he is trying to make that part of his game too, thats great. The shot was OFTEN associated with inefficient chuckers, ala Westbrook or Tmac. When you shoot sub 40% from that area, its almost always better to step back and take the 3 instead or drive. For a lot of players, a mid-range is the worst thing you can take. Seems like some of the great shooters in our league now are willing to take the mid-range which is fine, because they hit those shots. But poor shooters and role players should largely be avoiding it.
Even the great mid range shooters typically are more efficient scoring elsewhere. The mid range is good for late in the clock for when there isn't anything else available and that is when the three level scorers go to work and get buckets mid range.
I see this point offered up often. Maybe the numbers I’m about to list don’t completely refute the idea, but I think it’s wildly overblown. Harden avoided midrange pretty aggressively and was always a league leader in drives to the rim and efficiency on those attempts. Chicago is 1st in mid range attempts this season. They are 16th in attempts in the paint and 12th in FG% on those attempts. Phoenix is 2nd in mid range attempts this season. They are 30th in the league in attempts in the paint and 7th in FG% on those attempts. Brooklyn is 3rd in mid range attempts this season. They are 17th in attempts in the paint and 25th in FG% on those attempts.
Chicago - DeRozan PHX - Booker , CP3 Brooklyn - Kyrie, KD Try again, it’s why you have to watch games and not just look at numbers. If you watch teams defend the Rockets it’s always 2-3 men protecting the paint and they guard the 3pt line. It’s why KPJ and Green always have to make such difficult layups
There’s math ... and then there’s game theory . It’s likely that taking a certain number of midrange shots is a teams best strategy . in a number of situations the choice is open 2 vs contested 3 . looking at this in a black and white manner is dumb . Also , personnel matters .. but really you have to look at the defense . however , the definitive answer is what NBA teams have done . 3’s are going up right ? However , you’ve also seen adjustments by defenses to try and limit them . it’s definitely OK to shoot 2’s . It might not be optimal . But you never know . Each possession can be different .
lol you got me. I have never watched a NBA game in my life. I live my life one spreadsheet at a time. Come on man. Bring the evidence. You said mid range opens up the paint and makes it easier for layups. Shouldn’t these mid range monster teams be feasting in the paint and scoring there better than others? Only Phoenix shoots well(7th)in the paint but they have by far the least attempts in the league. Mid range is an extremely useful tool to have at your disposal. It makes certain players harder to guard, but players who can get to the paint often and score there efficiently get to the paint often and score there efficiently whether they can or will shoot mid range shots or not. There’s also the fact that many of these mid range monsters are mid range monsters because they can’t get to the paint and finish as easily and as often as other guys. Chris Paul’s midrange ability is not helping him get to the rim. I think the idea has some merit for SOME players, but also think it’s entirely overblown.
I don’t think mid range shots keep a defense “honest.” Being a 3 level scorer is valuable, but every single team in the league would rather their opponent take a mid range shot than a layup. Unless you are knocking them down at a high clip, defenses are gonna give you that shot. It’s a very good situational tool to have, but it isn’t dictating a defense or offense.
Can you read? Being wide open has nothing to do with rhythm. Go see what I highlighted in bold in my OP. “Shots you think you can make 50% of the time” is largely dependent on rhythm and therefore impossible to calculate.
I think the school of thought that's emerging here is that the fact that they took those midrange shots (even if they shot a lower percentage) made those 3 pointers easier than they would have been had they taken no midrange shots and defenses knew they restrict themselves to only shooting from the 3 point line. I understand it's not really something that's quantifiable, more of a "feel for the game" type thing.
Harden damn near has a mental block when it comes to midrange both his midrange and catch and shoot went out the window once MDA arrived, and I doubt it’s ever coming back
