This is an interesting factoid, and Houston's reputation for number crunching is mentioned too. The full article is here: http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012/08/31/multi-camera-tracking-technology/#more-21231
That's a nice stat, but like any stat it's kinda flawed due to the system the Nuggets PGs and Lin were in and the personal the played with. Both teams ran offenses predicated on creating nothing but layups or 3, perhaps like no other team in the league - often playing small-ball. You take those guys and put them in another system, like say the Lakers', Celtics', Bucks', or Blazers' and their numbers would go down rather drastically I imagine.
You're exactly right. The 12-20 footer should only be a bail out shot when the clock has run out and the other two shots are unattainable.
In theory, yes. But it's not quite that easy and most offenses simply aren't predicated on doing so. The Bucks for example have a number of plays (curls, pin-downs, flat-cuts) that create wide open 15-19 footers that they keep on running over and over again. The Celtics do lot of stuff with KG popping out for jumpers. All those single-doubles they ran for Allen quite often set up a mid range jumper. The Warriors run this hard angle p&r off motion that is predicated on setting up an open sideline jumper for the big. The Sixers have a ton of sets that basically set up nothing but open mid range jumpers. The Blazers run a lot of simple top of the key P&R with Aldridge with no spread-big next to him. That usually leads to a lot of mid range jumpers as well. Most teams do some stuff with their big popping out when teams are downing, often resulting in longs 2s, etc... I could go on and on and on. That fact is that unless you have the right personal (good shooting wings and a spread-big) or play small-ball it's tough to run an offense predicated on creating nothing but layups and 3s in the half-court. The open shot more often than not is a long 2, because that's what the defense/scheme is usually giving up.
Ah yes, the classic "it's the system" argument, as if it's the system that makes the plays instead of the player. Is it the system that has a quick first step? Is it the system that can penetrate and force defensive rotations and thereby create assist opportunities? No, it's the player who does that this. This ability translates well in any system and any group of personnel. The decision making at work in looking for at-the-rim and 3-pointer assists is also something that works in any system or team. If your point is that if a PG doesn't get to the opportunity to play PG in terms of time handling the ball and total touches, then his numbers won't be good, well, that's certainly true but it's not a particularly interesting fact. A player can't show his skills without the opportunity to do so, but that's a separate issue from whether he possesses those skills. It's curious to me how easily the "it's the system" argument is applied to dismiss Lin's strengths but not to his weaknesses. Dantoni had the reputation of not emphasizing defense (certainly he wouldn't take players out of the game for not playing defense or failing at defensive rotations) yet no one has ever said "Lin has weak defense but that's because of the system he played in." Also, Dantoni's system emphasized aggressive play from the PG, and such aggressive play results in both having more assists and more turnovers. (I don't mean the turnovers Lin committed because of his weak ball-handling skills, but the ones he committed because he was trying to make aggressive plays in traffic.) Nash too had high turnover rate too. Nevertheless, no one ever says, Lin has a lot of turnovers but that's because of the system. If you're going to use the system argument, you might as well be consistent. If the conclusions that result from applying the argument with consistency are not acceptable or absurd, then the whole argument is flawed. What does 'system' even mean? The time that Lin played under Dantoni was limited, so it's not as if Lin put up all those numbers in one style of play. Under Woodson, Lin's numbers were not as high and his turnovers went down too, but not bc it was a radically different system (indeed Woodson was still running a lot of Dantoni style offense), but bc the max salary players who returned had to get more touches. That has nothing to do with any system, but simply the distribution of opportunities amongst the players. It's not as if Lin suddenly lost his skills, but he did have fewer opportunities to use them.
That many teams do something doesn't mean it's a good thing. All offenses should be predicated on creating nothing but layups and 3s—and really not just 3s but corner 3s. But it takes an organization-wide effort. It's the front office's job to find players who can make corner 3s and/or can get into the paint and finish at the rim. A coach is limited to the abilities of the personnel at his disposal, but it's his responsibility to get as many opportunities for corner 3s and layups as possible. Notably, of the teams you mention, only the Celtics have been contenders in the last decade, and they have always struggled to score enough to make the most of their sensational defense. I don't know how to check how many corner 3s a team takes per game, but I bet corner 3 attempts and FTA per game (both adjusted for pace) characterize the top offenses in the game.
Here's another interesting stat about PGs, but one I don't really know how to interpret. "[The point guards for which we have these stats] all average around between 78 and 88 touches per game. One difference: Rondo and Lowry dribble a bit less than the other four. Rondo averages 4.4 dribbles per touch. Lowry averages 4.6, while the other four mentioned above all [Tony Parker, Russell Westbrook, Ricky Rubio, Brandon Jennings] bounce the ball between five and six times per touch on average." http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012/03/08/who-is-really-the-fastest-point-guard/ The fact that Rondo takes fewer dribbles than others seems to confirm what I see, that he can quickly read the defense and set up a shot opportunity for himself or others. I don't know if that's what that stat actually means though.
I don't get the point you're trying to make here. Seems like you're acting defensive as if I attacked Lin by brining up that he played in a system predicated on creating layups and 3s. First of all, I said the same thing applies to the two Nuggets PGs. Secondly, I never brought up anything about Lin's turnovers or his defense here or in any other thread, ever. I never said anything about Lin not being a good playmaker or the sytem - not the player - making plays either. If you disagree with me that Lin played on a team/in a system that helped boost his numbers in that specific stat, than you're simply not paying attention. And please stop being so defensive. I have no bias whatsoever against Jeremy Lin one way or the other.
In every team, there are plays for every scenario in all areas of the floor and a different collection of skillets that you must take advantage of. But the stat in question is closer to the ideal. And even with the same group under the same coach, when Lin played, the dynamic changed. There was less iso (more likely to be a jumpshot) more penetration and lobs and better lockout to 3s. In fact, Novak's insurgence coincides with Novak's. So imo the stats seems to reflect what I saw, and it was not a system thing in itself, the players themselves mold and evolves the offense according to the strengths presented on the court.
^Which is what I said in the first place. It's a combination of system and the players one plays with. A system predicated on creating layups and 3s is useless if your team doesn't push the ball, your PG can't turn the corner and you have no shooters spreading the court. The Knicks and the Nuggets however both ran a fast paced, pick&roll heavy offense looking to mainly create layups and 3s. Both teams played a ton of small ball and had good shooters spreading the court pretty much at all times. The fact that Melo went out for an extended period of time probably indeed did not hurt Lin's stats, as the offense then went even more through Lin than before. Also, with regards to "All offenses should be predicated on creating nothing but layups and 3s.", again I'd argue that it's not quite that easy. Not only do you need the right personal to do so, but more things go into a good offense/set/shot than shot location. You have to consider the openness of the shot on average, the expected floor balance when the shot goes up and the positioning of your bigs with relation to offensive rebound chances. Also, how easy does the play break down, how many options are there to go to, how easy is it to take a away each option, can you run the play from a different starting formation, can you incorparate new wrinkles/(surprise) counters down the road, etc...
Interesting points. My counterarguments: 1. The Bucks do not play efficient basketball. They have a point guard who jacks continually and doesn't get to the FT enough. They haven't won anything in years either running all them shooters off high picks. The 15-19 footer is going to be wide open most of the time. Professionals know what is the lowest efficiency shot. Most every defense is going to give up that shot for that very reason. They don't want to have to tangle with you in the paint and draw fouls. And they don't want their opponents bombing away from 3-point land at 40+%. That's why they defend the 3-point line and let you have the 19 footer off the shot fake at the 3-point line. Do the math. It's very simple. 40% on a 3-point shot is 1.2 PPS. 50% on a 2-point shot (which is a higher percentage than this league shoots from 2) is 1 PPS. 2. Ray Allen is one of the best shooters in history. He may be the exception to the rule that we are talking about. But those guys are few and very, very far between. And the truth is, even RayRay doesn't shoot 60% out there, which is what he'd have to shoot to match the productivity of a 40% 3-ball shot. 3. KG does pop out and receive the ball. But that play isn't designed to get KG an 18 footer. It's designed to get him the ball in the triple threat position so he can made a decision with it. Yeah, sometimes that turns into an 18 footer. But only when there is nothing else available. Oh, and KG is one of the best midrange shooters in the whole league. You can't always get a 3 or a layup. But championship offenses are designed and built with that in mind and with the the thought that if you have to go to a bailout shot, at least get that shot from one of the best shooters in the business. 4. The Sixers ain't won jack and now they've brought in a low-post dominator to hopefully get to the rim for layups/dunks and spread the floor for three-point shots. 5. The Blazers are only running LaMarcus out high because they have no other interior option. They flip him between low and high and when the D packs it in low, he gets that turnound 17 footer off. It's not an efficient shot and they have no chance of winning a championship unless they improve their offensive efficiency. ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- http://courtvisionanalytics.com/mid...-nba-the-mayors-the-maestros-and-the-maniacs/ This is the best article I have seen recently on midrange shooting. It is simple and to the point. My comments: The second graphic (Guys who shoot best) tells the story. At best you get guys that shoot 55-60% out there. And as I stated above, they are very far and few between. Let's examine the players. 1. Chris Paul - If I'm his coach, I build the whole offensie around him and let him make the right decision. When CP3 shoots that 17 footer, it is most often a bailout shot, and he's still knocking it down at 60%. 2. Nash - same as CP3. He makes the right decisions and milks the possession for the best possible shot. You just don't get any better than these two guys from the perimeter offensively. If they are shooting a 17 footer, it is because it is the best shot available. 3. Tony Parker and Jason Terry are guys that have earned millions by hitting those midrange shots. Remember, those guys are very few and far between. They are good enough from midrange to keep shooting it. Look at their numbers and remember they are mixing these midrange shots with forays to the rim and the bomb. These are players that know what is the right shot for them to take, that are very good at maximizing what the defense gives them. Steph Curry is younger and his offensive is predicated on the 3-point bomb but he hits at midrange at a high enough clip and plays the right way. I'm okay with him taking that shot. 4. The bigger guys - Durant, Dirk, Garnett...they take good shots. They are potent hall-of-fame players that have led their teams and they make the right decisions with the basketball in their hands. I don't begrudge them the midrange shot. They maximize the value they get out of it. 5. Timmy D - dude is just not good enough from midrange for it to be a significant part of his game. He's much more effective in the low-block. Most of his midrange shots are bailout type shots. One of the problems with the Spurs that kept them from a championship this last year was teams funneled the ball to Timmy D out high and then faded off him and let him have the shot. Although he shoots 50% out there, it lowers the teams offensive efficiency. 6. Guys like Kobe, Boozer, Brandon Jennings, Brandon Bass, Pau Gasol, Russell Westbrook, Rudy Gay, and Lebron James are just not effective at the midrange. Hear me out. Kobe - He's had to take too many shots throughout his career, especially the last several seasons. He is not efficient from midrange. Most of those shots are bailout shots because their offensive has been lacking cohesiveness. I expect with Nash handling and making decisions both him and Pau's efficiency is going to go through the roof. Boozer-while he shoots off the charts from one spot on the floor, he gives it all back and shoots like crap from everywhere else. Bass-simply not a good enough shooter to be stroking it out there and he can't do anything else with the ball. When he pops out, you can bet he's shooting it because he can't pass and can't drive and finish. So, you're stuck with less than 1 pps on his shots out there. That sux. Brandon Jennings is just a jacker. He jacks from all over and kills his team with his offensive inefficiency by taking poor shots at the wrong times and then leaving them holding the bag taking poor shots when he dribbles out the clock and is covered. He's absolutely awful and every defense plays Milwaukee to let him just jack up all those garbage shots out there. Gay - just look at the numbers. He shows up on the worst shooters graphic as well. Just terrible for the number of shots he takes out there...terrible. Westbrook - there's nothing worse than an out of control Westbrook coming down and being forced to take the 16-19 footer. Defenses should play him to take that shot all day long and double Durant to ensure Westbrook jacks up 30 shots a game ala Kobe. Lebron - here's my big argument that most of you disagreed with. Lebron is too strong, too big, too smart, too quick, and simply too dominant to be firing up 18 footers. He can get to the rim at will. And before the playoffs this season, while he almost always makes the right basketball play, he wasn't making the right basketball play for him or his team by driving to the rim and then dishing out or by taking an 18 footer. A guy like Lebron should not have to take more than about 10 midrange jumpers the whole season!!!!! He's better off to step back and take the 3-point shot if he has to. And he's really better off to just stare down the gun barrel, make his move and take it inside for the finish and foul. So, Lebron shooting more than 1 midrange shot per week is really playing into the defense and is taking down the offensive efficiency of his team. Now, this is the best of the best from midrange in the NBA. Everybody else is either ineffective or counterproductive to their team's success. Bottom line is if a team is designed and built to shoot midrange shoots, you can mark it down, they aren't competing for a title, they are most likely not a playoff team, and they very well may be trying to tank for the lottery, they simply don't have the pieces to shoot the 3 and get to the rim, or at the very least, they have no idea what they are doing. THE MIDRANGE JUMP SHOT IS THE MOST INEFFICIENT SHOT IN BASKETBALL.
@HMMMHMM, my bad, I gave a kneejerk reaction to the "it's the system" meme that I've heard from players and on many boards to dismiss Lin's numbers. I understand now that you were saying something else. In the article that jopatmc cited about long 2's, it says, "when CP3 shoots that 17 footer, it is most often a bailout shot, and he's still knocking it down at 60%." Meanwhile, Zowe's analysis explains Rajon Rondo 43% of potential assists leading to long twos in terms of the other players on the roster. ("Any team starting two jump-shooting power forwards, Brandon Bass and Kevin Garnett, will rely to a borderline unhealthy degree on long twos.) However, I wonder if part of the reason Rondo has so many potential assists leading to long 2s is because he himself is reluctant to shoot the midrange, unlike CP3 who is both confident and good at that. That is, if the PG can shoot the midrange himself, that may mean fewer potential assists leading to long 2's.
I think they're more aware of the potential revenue involved in a Lin signing than the potential assists.
It's not that simple. If your offense is only predicated on creating only two kinds of shots, it makes it too predictable to defend. In football, the passing game is vastly more efficient than the running game. But you can't just ditch the running backs. You have to have the threat of the run to make the pass efficient. Similarly, you have to establish the threat of scoring anywhere on the court in order to create layups and 3s. I think a more meaningful stat is how many OPEN shots a player creates anywhere.
What really has to be established is spacing for an inside-outside game. In other words, to win a championship you've got to establish you can get to the rim and force the D to collapse so you can then shoot the 3-ball at a 40+% clip. You don't go out to try to establish the 18-footer. As we've already explained, NBA defenses will give you the 18 footer.
