Rockets open to a new range of shooting: the ‘middies’

I am surprised this stupid misconception about Morey's Rockets and the midrange still persists. It's been corrected time and time again that if the player is actually GOOD at shooting the midrange, then the FO and coaching has always been OK with them shooting it. 3s or layups only were for the likes of Smith/Brewer/Ariza/Tucker/House where you are not at all good from that range so you are much better off taking a couple of steps back before launching. Since you are likely to miss any ways, we much rather the blind squirrel find its nut from the 3pt line instead. CP3 shot plenty of middies when on our team. I highly doubt Morey was waiting by his locker after the game to ask him about it.

 

I think what needs to be looked at is the comparison between uncontested midrange and contested 3.

Everybody already understands the simple math of efficiency of the 3pt shot. It is clearly better than the midrange. But those who advocate not abandoning the midrange typically argue that adding the midrange game opens up the 3pt shot. In other words, if you have to choose between an open midrange and a contested or rushed 3, which is the better shot? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that the proliferation of the 3pt shot opens up the midrange space that would benefit shooters who are good at the midrange.

Also, the inefficiency of the midrange may have a certain degree of self-fulfilling effect. If it is such a bad shot, why would you want to spend time working on it? And if you don't work on it, how can you be good at it? When I see clips of players practicing, I almost always see them shooting 3 and almost never see them practice midrange. I don't know if that's an accurate picture of what's happening in practices. Maybe some insiders can give us some intel.

 

this is true…Harden abandoned the midrange because he realized that he could generate stepback threes at will and hit them at around a 38% rate

u could say he took it to the extreme, but his PPG skyrocketed so I guess he saw no reason to change what he was doing

if KD was on the Rockets, he’d have been taking midrange

only real midrange guy we dissuaded from shooting was Melo, but that’s because he’s too inefficient at his little ISO and postup midrangers

if u want to criticize Morey, u can say he didn’t bring in guys who were good or comfortable in the midrange…the guys he had aside from CP3 and Harden, I didn’t want to see any of them taking midrange jump shots…it wasn’t their game

 

You better come with some source citations if you're going to be making these kinds of sweeping psychological, sociological, and physiological claims, especially when nearly every person who is arguing with you is bringing stat-based evidence on how individual player shot distribution has changed over time, and how their offensive efficiency has risen.

I'm all ears to literally any scientific study that proves any of the points you just made. But it's not going to cut it to just say something like: "it's obvious", or "I don't have time to look it up" any more than I'd accept some anti-vaccine/anti-mask BS based solely on feelings. If it's just your opinion, then fine. But your opinion versus actual statistics is not going to be especially convincing.

In good faith, I fundamentally disagree with the premise that the kids entering the league are all hardwired to be most comfortable shooting mid-range jumpers. If anything, I'd expect that most young kids nowadays have been emulating Steph Curry and Damian Lillard for their entire lives, and seeing a 3 splash down energizes them so much more than a mid-range jumper. A 19-year old now has been watching the Warriors be one of the most dominant teams of all-time for nearly half of their lifetime. They've watched Lillard and Trae Young stretch the boundaries of what is an acceptable shot all the way out to the logo. They were only 10 years old when Kobe was still a dominant force before his Achilles tear in 2013.

I'm dating myself here, but as a kid growing up in the 90s, there was a clear lineage of Jordan to Iverson to Kobe as the guy you could aspire to be on the court. Shaq or Hakeem might have been your favorite player, but growing up, odds are you're not going to be 7-feet tall and able to play like them. LeBron and Giannis are the same way; they're the best and most popular players in the league, but it's impossible to pretend that you have LeBron's bounce and court vision, or Giannis' Inspector Gadget limbs. Their game is beautiful, because they are one-of-a-kind, and their instincts perfectly utilize their physical gifts. On the other hand, you could train yourself to shoot turnaround midrange shots like late career Jordan or Kobe, or cross guys like Iverson on an And-1 mixtape. It takes no special athletic gift to hoist threes like Steph, or to attempt stepbacks like Luka or Harden (obviously making either consistently is ridiculously hard).

The game constantly changes and evolves. Just because it's not played the way you want it to be (which usually coincides with however you played the game in HS and your 20s) or that it is played in a way that does not ideally suit your favorite player's skillset, doesn't mean it's fundamentally broken, or that the coaching staff is filled with idiots. We've got a long rebuild ahead of us all here. Embrace the growing pains, and realize that Coach Silas is almost assuredly gone based on historical precedent after next year unless the team is an overnight playoff contender.

 

is this more efficient or the most inefficient shot you can imagine?

 

midrange also helps you rest and avoid beating and injuries...because its the easiest shot, available everywhere, and includes much less contact than drives and layups..... further making your all around game more efficient increasing your availability and health....

looking at a big picture, only 3s and layups is just one big pile of nonsense...micro managment at its worst....
PENNY PINCHING

 

The math can get quite messy, because 33.3% from 3 is equivalent to 50% from 2, but 55% from 2 is equivalent to around 36.7% from 3. The difference between 33.3% and 36.7% is the difference between a below average 3PT shooter and an above average 3PT shooter.

However, the difference between 55% and 50% mid-range shooter is essentially just the difference of 5 shots across 100 shots. Using Jalen Green as an example, it would be equivalent to him making 35 more shots over the course of his entire season so far (53 games).

I'm curious how analytics are able to reconcile these margin of error level of differences. Mathematically speaking, a 50% 2 PT shooter is about as efficient in scoring as the worse 3PT shooting team taking a 3PT shot. However, if a mid-range shooter is statistically far less affected by a shot contest than a 3PT shooter, this makes mid-range shots very valuable in many scenarios (shot clock running out, running out the game clock with a lead etc.)

 

I'm not sure what the goal would be of that. From what I can tell, basketball analytics doesn't preach to not take 2's, so arguing taking 2's based upon percentage success vs 3's based on percentage success seems moot. For example, basketball analytics, generally speaking, says to take layups/dunks and 3's and get away from taking most of the stuff in the middle unless you have proven to be elite at it. Layups and dunks are 2's. So in your scenario, the math would more probably be identifying whether the shooting percentage of (all 2 point shots - 2's that are layups and dunks) is greater than taking 3's. In other words, we're basically back to the mid-range vs. 3's argument again.

Secondly, let's just say you use a 55% as a barometer on 2's. If you count any 2 point shot, today there are only about 30 players shooting above 55% (Eric Gordon is 31, Jae'Sean is 18, and interestingly, Chris Paul is 32). Most of the top 30 are, duh, centers. So if you take out guys that do nothing but dunk or play inside like Gobert, Allen, Harrell, Ayton, etc, you have a lot fewer.

Thirdly, if you restrict it to people just shooting 4 mid-range shots per game or more, there are only 3 people shooting above 50% (Aldridge, Durant, and Paul.... if you want to round up, I'll throw in McCollum). As a matter of fact, after the top-15 using that parameter, nobody in the entire NBA shoots above 40%(?!).

NBA.com did a story about the mid-range a few months ago where they showed that the entire NBA was on a downtrend on mid-range shots, but the percentage of total shots that are mid-ranged seems to have plateaued about 2 or 3 seasons ago. If I recall, the percentage was something like 12-13%. Back around 2010 it was around 30%... note the trend downward started at least a decade ago.

 

This is interesting. My initial idea was generally on how these numbers would work once we also start factoring the value of game clock. For example, in a tied game with 10 seconds left, a 40% mid-range shooter should mathematically be the preferred option over even a 35% 3PT shooter. If we stretch that out a bit, if one team has a 3 point lead with 30 seconds left and currently have possession, a higher percentage mid-range shot should theoretically also be worth more than a 3 point shot, because making 1 basket creates a two possession game (and it comes down to executing inbound passes and making free throws).

Therefore, whilst 3 point shots are generally going to be more efficient in the long run, each game has a limit of 48 minutes. So I would wonder how the value of 3s and 2s would change once teams need to start managing the clock. To add on to that, when teams start managing clocks (2 for 1, game clock running out), they are more likely to opt for jumpshots as opposed to running set plays. In those circumstances, the quality of the shot will also drop, so I would wonder how this drop in quality affects the math.

I'm mostly spit-balling, since I feel like when teams begin favoring clock management over shot quality, the math between 2s vs 3s would also change.

 

Every situation would be different and could also be dictated by the defense and the situation. If you're down by 3, they may guard you out to the 3 point line, but you really have no choice but take a 3. You also have to factor in what kind of 3 is available - is it a preferable corner 3? Is it a contested 3? What kind of shooters do you have? No matter what the situation, a 3 may be the best/most open available shot you can get. But I would think in all these last-second type of cases, these would be the exceptions to the rule since they're usually going to be end-of-game or end-of-quarter situations, right?

Interestingly enough, apparently there's only one team in the entire NBA that shoots over 45% from mid-range (the Nets) but there are several that shoot between 40-45%. About half the league shoots under 40% from mid-range.

 

Other than the math, I think in the modern offense, 3's and layups compliment each other way too well for the midrange to be truly relevant like before.

Layups and 3's naturally creates spacing, you can't really commit to one without giving up another on defense in theory. that's why drive and kicks are basically staples of every offense because it creates defensive scrambles and rotations the moment an extra defender is committed.

I don't see many plays other than iso's, post ups and maybe a 2 man PnR that creates mid-ranges. With that said, in end of game situations, especially when most defense play drop coverage, the mid-range is probably one of the best tools to get a bucket.

 

And if you aren't honed in and retain muscle memory for in game middies and only use them in rare late game situations, you'll suck at it.

 

The midrange was used a lot in the clutch.

 

Who are our best Mid Range Shooters?

Rocket River

 

It's hard to choose.

Every Rockets players shooting is streaky.

 

They are not winning many games incapable of making 3s.

 

FVV FT line area

Bari

Jalen along baseline

Cam

 

We need to adjust or focus cause man
We need points

Rocket River

 

I agree, I stated it last year and folks went at my neck …points are points to me, why go 5min without a basket because you’re refusing to take a midrange shot

FVV used to be really good at taking them and now he’s driving too deep in paint and can’t finish

Last night was first time in 2 years I seen Jalen attempt a floater

We drafted Bari knowing he was a good midrange shooter and last night I believe he was 3-4 from midrange but only 1-6 from 3 (think he did miss 3 corner 3s)

that will stop defenses from sagging into paint and open it up for Alpi and (Amen) … while also giving our 3pt shooters alil more space (might help %)