Kupchak: Some Coaches Tell Teams Only Score with 3's, FT, or Layups

All three ways mean for an extra point. Why not more extra points?

[QUOTE=BlackVVaves]Actually, to the posters saying he's talking about Mike D, Mitch is referring to Rockets GM Morey, and what Rockets fans deem "Moreyball"

Blame McHale if you want, but he's just carrying out Morey's orders. Go check google out and find a the quotes with Morey calling mid-range jumpers obsolete in his statistical realm, how his moneyball formula deems 3's and dunks the best way to win today.

Mitch is taking a shot at the idiocy Morey is promoting throughout the NBA ranks, in a subtle-but-not-so-subtle way.[/QUOTE]
Yep. The Rocket's d-league team is even worse. They run up the floor and shoot a 3 immediately, every time.

[QUOTE=Droid101]Yep. The Rocket's d-league team is even worse. They run up the floor and shoot a 3 immediately, every time.[/QUOTE]
...and win

If the league doesn't like it they should widen the court and move out the 3 point line.


It's easy to see how having a player who can get off a midrange shot on demand can be beneficial. Having a team that seeks out midrange shots is not a good idea, but you have to have the ability to hit them when you need to.

Having the threat of a pull up jumper makes it easier to get to the rim, teams will start chasing you off the 3 point line and ceding the 2 point shot. An open 2-point shot is still usually a good play. Big men will still need the threat of a shot to pull their defenders away from the paint. The 2 point jumper isn't dead it's just scaled back.

It's simple math. Those are the most efficient shots. A 3 pointer, layups, and foul shots. 2 point shots are inefficient. Might as well take a 3.

[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]...and win

If the league doesn't like it they should widen the court and move out the 3 point line.


It's easy to see how having a player who can get off a midrange shot on demand can be beneficial. Having a team that seeks out midrange shots is not a good idea, but you have to have the ability to hit them when you need to.

Having the threat of a pull up jumper makes it easier to get to the rim, teams will start chasing you off the 3 point line and ceding the 2 point shot. An open 2-point shot is still usually a good play. Big men will still need the threat of a shot to pull their defenders away from the paint. The 2 point jumper isn't dead it's just scaled back.[/QUOTE]
Win what? What are the rockets winning?

[QUOTE=chocolatethunder]Win what? What are the rockets winning?[/QUOTE]

Their D LEAGUE TEAM wins. reading comprehension fail dude

[QUOTE=bagelred]It's simple math. Those are the most efficient shots. A 3 pointer, layups, and foul shots. 2 point shots are inefficient. Might as well take a 3.[/QUOTE]

Tell that to LMA.

[QUOTE=toooo]Tell that to LMA.[/QUOTE]

He's one of the best in the league at that shot and he's still inefficient. 50.7% TS this season=NOT GOOD EFFICIENCY. I get it, he just had two great games, but that doesn't change years of evidence. He can be Dirk level from mid range and still not put up good efficiency without getting to the line a bunch or shooting 3's.

[QUOTE=bagelred]It's simple math. Those are the most efficient shots. A 3 pointer, layups, and foul shots. 2 point shots are inefficient. Might as well take a 3.[/QUOTE]

The thing is that those shots become a lot less efficient in the postseason. The game changes and the same formulas don't translate. Morey's idea is good for regular season success but it doesn't translate.

And the coaches who employ this strategy, will never win a title.

You can't play the game [I]purely[/I] for efficiency. Coaches generally should want their team to value possessions, but you can't avoid the mid range area altogether. The in between game in basketball is essential.

That is the area on the court that good defensive teams concede. If you have a player who is proficient in his attack in that area on the court, you will most certainly force teams to lose discipline defensively, thus more efficient opportunities will open up. The corner three, the paint will open up a little bit as result as well. You will also draw some fouls.

Take a look at LaMarcus Aldridge right now, who is just killing Houston with his mid range game. Houston has clearly become flustered on defense, and as a result will become more and more undisciplined. They will likely have to start doubling him from those spots, and once that happens, it will be floodgates for the Portland shooters.

Basketball is a simple game.

a good two point shooting team is efficient and consistent. a good 3 point shooting team may look more efficient on paper when you avg it out and move the numbers around in some clever way to favor it, but from game to game, its not consistent.

ever hear that phrase, "You live by the three, and you die by the three"? well there's a reason for that. no one ever said, "you live by the two, and you die by the two".

The problem is that in the playoffs, you have a much higher chance of winning if you can make the bad shots at a higher rate than your opponent.

And the strategy worked well for 82 games, and hasn't the past two.

Nobody has shot well outside the paint except for Parsons in Game 1. I don't think that has nearly as much to do with Portland's defense as it does with Houston's bad shooting. This why I think Houston can win back to back games on the road, because defensively Portland hasn't been all that special. James Harden has played his worst back to back games of the last two years, and Aldridge has scored almost 100 in those two games, and Portland has won by , what 9 total points?

But to the point of Aldridge, that statement in the OP is stupid. Of course 3's and layups are preferred, but in Aldridge's case, he doesn't really have the range of a three point shooter, and doesn't have the foot speed to get lay ups, so by default his only shot is a mid-range shot. That's not to say the mid-range shot is worthless, but its a less efficient shot for 98% of the guys in the league except for the few PF's and C's who can hit it. Aldridge, Dirk, David West, Serge... For every guard a mid range shot is a much less effective shot than a 3 (if they have the range) or a lay-up (usually, they're going to get fouled).

Its a sound strategy, and it clearly works. Because one guy has beaten them with an ineffective shot (one guy) doesn't mean its an awesome shot choice for everyone. Like how a fast break lay-up is probably the most effective shot (outside of free throws), there are times when it's not a good idea to take them. Similarly, the corner 3 is the most effective 3pt shot in the game, but if the defender's double in the corners, you go to something else.

Because Aldridge has perfected the mid-range shot and the Rockets don't have a great defender playing the PF, doesn't mean that the shot is needed to win.

[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]He's one of the best in the league at that shot and he's still inefficient. 50.7% TS this season=NOT GOOD EFFICIENCY. I get it, he just had two great games, but that doesn't change years of evidence. He can be Dirk level from mid range and still not put up good efficiency without getting to the line a bunch or shooting 3's.[/QUOTE]
Aldridge was by far the most active midrange shooter in the league this season, and there

[QUOTE=PJR]And the coaches who employ this strategy, will never win a title.

You can't play the game [I]purely[/I] for efficiency. Coaches generally should want their team to value possessions, but you can't avoid the mid range area altogether. The in between game in basketball is essential.

That is the area on the court that good defensive teams concede. If you have a player who is proficient in his attack in that area on the court, you will most certainly force teams to lose discipline defensively, thus more efficient opportunities will open up. The corner three, the paint will open up a little bit as result as well. You will also draw some fouls.

Take a look at LaMarcus Aldridge right now, who is just killing Houston with his mid range game. Houston has clearly become flustered on defense, and as a result will become more and more undisciplined. They will likely have to start doubling him from those spots, and once that happens, it will be floodgates for the Portland shooters.

Basketball is a simple game.[/QUOTE]


The two teams that shot the most corner 3's last year were Miami and San Antonio :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Droid101]Aldridge was by far the most active midrange shooter in the league this season, and there’s a bit of poetic justice in his going to Houston and burying the “no-midrange” Rockets with the exact kinds of 17-to-20-foot jumpers that Houston itself has eliminated from its smart-guy offensive diet. In fact, Aldridge has attempted more midrange shots himself this year than the Rockets’ entire team.


[url]http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-rocket-killer-breaking-down-lamarcus-aldridges-playoff-scoring/[/url][/QUOTE]

I agree that his ability to hit 2's is valuable.

-He can pick and pop w/ lillard who is deadly coming off picks
-He can get a shot off on demand, which helps when you're trying to slow down possessions late in the game or in late-shotclock situations
-He forces his defender to stay close to him when he leaves the paint
-It opens up his driving and post games because defenders must respect his pump fake

So yeah, he doesn't do the "smart guy offense" thing, but the things he does do allows his teammates to play "smart guy offense". It's similar to Dirk, but Dirk can also contribute 3's, which makes him way more efficient and effective as a floor spacer.

I don't see any reason why LMA couldn't add the 3 to his repertoire the same way Bosh has. All Bosh really did was extend the range on his spot up 2's a few feet. Almost the same shot, taken in the same situation, but for 1.5x the points. If LMA could shoot 30% on 3's it would be nearly the same efficiency as he's shooting on long 2's this season.