Mid range vs 3 pt shots?

[TheReal Kendall]

One is 2 points the other is 3 points.

I seen in the thread about Dirk made by Cavs/Wilt guy that people feel that the 3 pointer is greater than the 2 now.

It is in terms of points but it's not a high percentage shot.

Here's some of the posts from the thread about Dirk:

Actually the worst shot in basketball is the mid range jumper.

today that is true - goes right to the heart of the whole 3 ball discussion. Before the 3 line, the mid-range shot was always the ideal (if the 4 or 5 couldn't get the ball down low). That is the whole statistical thing I was talking about earlier

It looks that way right now because:

A. the 3 point shot makes it more difficult for players to justify practicing/taking mid-range shots. Old school guys like Larry Bird tell players he never practiced the 3 point shot ever (which is true, he never did - only mid range shots) and they look at him cross eyed like he's crazy.

B. Because of A., hardly anyone in the league today has developed a competent mid-range game. If your a 'shooter' today it means you camp out on the 3 point line, if your a slasher it means you finish at the rim. So that's all they practice and drill.

Anything can become the worst shot in basketball if it is never practiced, taught, or emphasized anymore. Today most players shoot in the mid-range only when denied the 3 point shot and get blocked from a drive so some ugly thing is a jacked up in desperation. 30+ years ago however, a 3 was more the 'desperation' shot and everyone's mid-range game was highly polished.

The midrange shot is the greatest lost art in the game. You'd think modern players would understand what a big part of Jordan's game it was, but sometimes it seems as if people only practice dunks and 25-footers.

What I wonder is if (and how) the game will change the next time a truly great big man shows up in the NBA...another Wilt, or Russell, or Kareem, or Moses Malone, or Shaq, for that matter.

No, the mid range shot is the worst shot in the league not because people don't practice but because the yield on the shot versus reward.

It is not a dying art. It is the worst shot in basketball statistically speaking. And team defense want teams shooting them. Not because they can't hit the shot, but because it is better for the defense to have the opponent shoot from that area.

I feel like this needs to be discussed more in depth.

Growing up all my coaches taught us the midrange game they never worried about the 3 pt shot because it's not a high % shot.

My whole game is midrange and drive and kick.

Like one poster said the 3 pt shot has really changed the core of bball and not in a good way.

[Geriatric]

I'll admit I cringe every time someone shoots a long range 2 with their back foot on the 3 point line, (I'm looking at you Luol Deng) but a true mid range game is a thing of beauty.

Absolutely hated Rip Hamilton with the Pistons, but I loved watching him roll off of screens and pop that mid-range shot of his. So smooth and fluid, he made you think anyone should be able to pop those 14 footers.

That intermediate game can do nothing but help any player. If you only shoot threes or drive to the rim, the defender just has to pick which one of those to take away from you. If you are a threat to pull up half-way to the rim it makes it much more difficult for someone to defend you.

[fpliii]

Thing is, the three is more efficient. If it's available, no reason not to take it (unless a long two is available as well, and you're significantly better from that distance). Corner 3s in particular are as long as some long 2s, so if you're shooting from the same distance, unless the two from a given spot is a much easier shot for you, you should take it (or pass to the open man for whom it is the easier shot).

In the playoffs, it's not as simple for the most part. Since the beginning of the league, the conference finals and NBA Finals have generally been populated by great defensive teams. They can take away the drive and threes, so a post game and/or mind range shooting very well might be needed to carry you to a chip. Defenses might be willing to live with you taking a long 2, since it's generally not as efficient as a three or an attempt at the rim. So there's a bit of game theory involved.

Problem is, when you run into a team whose offensive anchor is adept in midrange/post game. If he's significantly better in the post or from midrange, you can't leave him open, or he'll burn you. Since you have to play him honest, the threes and drive will be there. These types of superstar scorers break the game, and put you in a very bad position as a team defense.

[ProfessorMurder]

I don't care what anyone says, the mid range shot should be the most practiced shot for anyone other than traditional centers.

If you've got good footwork and are automatic from midrange, hit a couple. Then you'll have them biting on fakes, then you'll have them sagging off the three because you took them off the dribble.

Good footwork with a good midrange game will open up everything for you.

[bmd]

For younger players, the mid-range shot may be better because they cannot shoot the 3 like the pros.

But when you have NBA players hitting 3's at around 40%, it is a much more efficient shot than a mid-range jumper.

If you take 10 two point shots, and make 50% of them, you score 10 points.

If you take 10 three point shots and make 40% of them, you score 12 points.

Plus, the idea that a mid-range jumper is better than a 3 is out-dated. It was like that at one time. That is what people were taught. But now, we know better.


Also, about shots at the rim...

Shots at the rim are statistically good. They are lay-ups, floaters, dunks, or you get fouled.

If you take 10 shots at the rim, an make 60% of them, you score 12 points.



So shots at the rim score you more points than mid-range jumpers because you can shoot them at a higher percentage. And 3 point shots, while you may shoot at a lower percentage, will net you more points because the shot is worth more.

It's much more statistically efficient to shoot 3's and shoot close 2's than to shoot mid-range jumpers.

If you have a mid-range jump shot, you should take it... but it's not something you should be specifically looking for.

[ZenMaster]

Here is what it comes down to:

If you're a good team who's focus on offense is to create good mid-range possibilities, you will lose when playing a good team who's main object is to create shots at the rim and open 3 pointers.
It's because shots at the rim and open 3 pointers forces longer and more crashed rotations, that means more offensive rebounds because the defense is out of place. You also get to the foul line more if you take it to the rim more so than shoot mid-range.
That means you will get a better rebound%, FT rate and higher eFG%, that's 3 out of the 4 factors of basketball, you probably increase your chances of turnovers but you have to make a lot of them if you're winning in the other 3 categories.

Now, you still want your players to be able to get good mid-range shots and know the technique, but it's best served for "desperate" situations, at least in terms of how you should approach the game from a tactical point of view.
Open mid-range shots are good, because all open shots are good, but players abuse it if you let them in order to get shots for themselves. It's easier for your team to get a team offense mentality if they're working together to get open rim shots and 3 pointers.

[b1imtf]

One is 2 points the other is 3 points.

Thanks

[MastaKilla]

I choose to shoot tha 3 cuh my stroke that wet but if the mid range game there ima run up in it like some good puussy nahmean?

[Inactive]

One is 2 points the other is 3 points.

I seen in the thread about Dirk made by Cavs/Wilt guy that people feel that the 3 pointer is greater than the 2 now.

It is in terms of points but it's not a high percentage shot.

All that matters is how efficiently you scored with each possession. You get 50% more points for a 3, so unless you're 50% more likely to hit a 2, the 3 is more efficient. The only shots that people actually make 50% more often than 3s are "at rim" shots. If you factored in FTs, other shots in the paint might be worth taking.

People occasionally try to come up with reasons why this wouldn't be the case, e.g more misses = more fastbreak opportunities for the opposing team, but I don't believe anyone has provided evidence to support that argument.

The mid range game is still important, because good defensive teams will do everything they can to deny corner 3s, and keep you out of the paint. But the 3 is a better shot when you can get it. The league averaged .538 EFG% on 3s, .483 EFG% on 2s, so they aren't taking too many 3s.

[AussieG]

I don't care what anyone says, the mid range shot should be the most practiced shot for anyone other than traditional centers.

If you've got good footwork and are automatic from midrange, hit a couple. Then you'll have them biting on fakes, then you'll have them sagging off the three because you took them off the dribble.

Good footwork with a good midrange game will open up everything for you.

This is the basic point. It's not about mathmatics or effeciency, it's a game.. it's basketball. Settling for mid range shots is bad, but hitting a couple opens things up. The more variety in your game, the harder you are to guard. If you can't shoot, it makes you easier to guard. Mid range shots are important in terms of opening up other areas of the game.

[chips93]

there is a reason every year teams are shooting more threes, and are shooting better from three. the spurs and heat were two of the most 3ot heavy teams in the league last year. two of the most surprisingly good teams last year, the rockets and knicks, shot the most int he league.

look at the 5 teams that took the most 10-15 foot jumpers last year, where they finished on offense is in brackets; boston (24), dallas (13), washington (30), philly (26), and cleveland (20).

So, unless you have dirk nowitzki, shooting midrange jumpers means you are gonna be pretty bad on offense.

now the 5 teams who shot the most 16-23 foot jumpers, philly (26), phoenix (29), washington (30), chicago (23), and utah (10).

so the only two teams who ranked in top 5 most frequent mid range shooters, ended up as the worst and 5th worst offense in the league.

those are some pretty conclusive stats



thats not to say that every player should shoot more threes. some guys just cant develop 3pt range, (monta ellis jumps to mind), but its clear, its very very difficult to be a good team while shooting a lot of mid range shots.

I don't care what anyone says, the mid range shot should be the most practiced shot for anyone other than traditional centers.

so why even have a discussion if your mind is made up already?

This is the basic point. It's not about mathmatics or effeciency, it's a game.. it's basketball. Settling for mid range shots is bad, but hitting a couple opens things up. The more variety in your game, the harder you are to guard. If you can't shoot, it makes you easier to guard. Mid range shots are important in terms of opening up other areas of the game.

but why cant you use a 3pt shot to open up the other parts of your game?

[BoutPractice]

The 3 is the most efficient shot (and long 2s, especially those just near the 3 point line, are the least efficient shot), as has been mentioned before, but there are huge rewards that come with being a good midrange shooter, especially nowadays. Being able to 'keep the defense honest' in all areas of the court will completely open up your offense. The better you are in the midrange, the more likely you are to get open shots in the efficient areas for your team.

[Kblaze8855]

There is being efficient....and there is going out and winning a basketball game. And when it comes down to....the games that matter...the shots that matter...a player without a pullup jumper built off the ability to drive....or a post game....isnt gonna win without some absurd defense.

Old post on the subject:

The math of it may be better but those drive or take a three types dont tend to be as reliable when it counts.

You cant just go dribble into a three every time you need a big basket and by the time the playoffs arrive only the best of the best of the best slashers can just walk into the lane at will.

I dont think its by chance that virtually every player known as a bigtime clutch performer is a midrange scorer. Jordan ,Bird, West, Kobe, Pierce, Melo, and even guys like Wade tend to end up going to a pullup midrange jumper when one shot needs making because you cant assume you get to the basket and a 3 vs a set halfcourt defense is rarely open.

Guys like Reggie, Ray Allen, and some others are clutch as hell but its generally off well called plays that spring them open. which is still great...but you dont just lean on that. When a play breaks down...when you get an offensive rebound with 16 seconds left and kick it out to your star guarded one on one at 20 feet...you want the guy with a pullup jumper.

A guy like Lebron could drive or hit a three since he was 19. Whatever anyone feels...he made 100+ threes on like 35% his second season. He could make a three almost his entire career. And he could get to the basket. But he became clutch when he could punish you for playing off him at the top of the key. When he could drive from 25 feet and stop with the defense on its heels and wet the 18 footer.

Jordan could get to the basket. But you watch the biggest shots...its over russell game 6...its the game winner from 97 game 1..the fadeaway...its the pullup jumper vs the Cavs. He made big shots going to the basket too...but you need one shot...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMB0pNnHbEg


Its pullup jumper after pullup jumper. You are like 3 minutes in before anything else is seen. And while its most obvious in clips of game winners the same thing happens all through the game from the truly great scorers. You are up against it..have to create a shot...you can take a bad three...you can drive into bodies...or you can drive...and stop and pop.

Its a near universal trait of great scorers.

A midrange shot being a bad shot makes sense in math. You gotta go win a basketball game on the back of a swingman he better be able to do it.

After a response about Harden:

He is great going to the basket at least in transition. Im just saying that I dont agree with the idea that you either drive or take a three because of numbers saying those are the best shots.

It had little to do with Harden. Ive read that claim many times lately and it just bugs me a bit. Its as if people dont remember that virtually every big shot they ever saw created off the dribble was a pullup jumper. You rarely see layups or pullup threes.

When a guy has to go create a shot...needs that basket....he needs the midrange jumper. The pullup jumper is the fall back shot of almost every great scoring swingman ever.

ANd I think the appreciation of it is dying because of numbers.

The midrange jumper is pretty much a "Shit just got real...." shot for players who need a basket. You cant just go to the basket at will and you are an idiot of you hoist contested 3s under pressure when you dont need 3.

Its the shot everyone disregards until their star has the ball and is guarded tight at 20 feet with the defense ready to rotate. The pullup jumper has been key to the career of so many legends I cant believe that people really dont want guys taking it. What....ignore it till your team needs one to win a title?

I dont see how you play NBA jam(3 or layup ball) in real life situation and ignore that when its time to win the shot you need is 12-20 feet and having your guys ignore it until then just seems odd.

Its as if we dont see this situation decide who wins EVERY year:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRUzPVBh64Y


Open 3 or layup makes sense for a role player.

Players expected to carry a team cant afford to be that way. It just doesnt work when the shots start to count.

[Fresh Kid]

3 point shotz are way better cuz its 3 points and not 2, plus midrange iz worse because you can get blocked easily compared to shooting tha long ball, tha only thing about 3 point shooting is you have to be good at it, if you are not good at it then just go for midrange or inside all of tha time, simple as that folkz.

[BoutPractice]

Kblaze8855 > Those are all good points.

Interestingly, there's at least one example (maybe there are more, can't think of any specific one right one) of a player known to be an elite midrange shooter who occasionally gets easier shots when it counts due to that very ability: Dirk. The 3 most important clutch baskets of Dirk's career were layups, and a large part of that comes the fact that everyone predicts he will take the midrange fadeaway, since he's got a decent chance of making it even if you're all over him. But maybe he's unique in that regard because he's big, strong and quick enough to get to the rim against most defenders... whereas a guy like Jordan and Kobe basically has no choice but to take the midrange jumper in those situations.