Mid range game is effective - players are just bad at it

[90sgoat]

The NBA has 3 ways it presents the data. I don't have it all gathered and oddly I have some on one computer and another set on this one. Anyway just an idea. Honestly there are clear differences in shot selection over time, but using this sample I'm not seeing differences in accuracy or at least notable as far back as the NBA has it recorded. I'll see if some other breakdowns give more details.

http://i.imgur.com/Elct7m7.png

Interesting, but not very useful since I am particularly interested in mid range percentages in the late 80s to mid 90s. I also think you should add a column with percentage compared to shots attempted for each distance, since higher volumen means lower percentage usually.

My hypothesis is that the mid range shot was more efficient in the 80s and 90s due to better shooters, but in particular I'd like to see uncontested percentages, but I doubt they have them.

My clear memory, and confirmed from Youtube, is that the semi-open 2 point shot in the 90s was an automatic score, for everyone from point guard to power forward, yet when I began watching for the second time around the 2000-2002, then I was appalled at how players bricked open 2s.

This is the problem with stats, you have to separate correlation from causation and that can be a serious problem with something as complex as basketball.

Again, I think looking purely on stats, the higher efficiency of the 3 point shot is overblown, because it co-incides with a period where the average player became a much worse mid range shooter (late 90s to mid 00s). If you look at stats only from that period, then your conclusion would be that the mid range shot is inefficient, but this could be - to some degree - that the players who took those shots had simply deteriorated in their mid range ability.

It's like with people saying the post game being dead and all, then a rookie in Okafor comes in and gets whatever he wants in the post. Nope, post game not dead, just players being really bad at it now.

Kawhi Leonard is going to revitalize the mid range game, mark my words, he is almost strictly a mid range player and very effective. When he wins MVP, kids will grow up and look at Kawhi and the mid range game will be popular again.

[plowking]

Those stats show shooters getting better post 2000. What is your point? :oldlol:

And your clear memory of open 2's being automatic in the 90's is wrong, since the stats say otherwise. Stats>your opinion.

[Fallen Angel]

The primary play to get open for any sort of jumpshot in this era is the pick and roll.

If your team has great pick and roll defense then they can completely guard all midrange shots an opponent takes. It doesn't take much more than a big wing guarding the ball and a mobile big switching on the perimeter player while the wing switches on the pick and fade man.

Less volume of shots means there are less opportunists for open looks. The easiest shot to take on a basketball court is the three because of the space available to shoot between your defender and the half court line.

[90sgoat]

Those stats show shooters getting better post 2000. What is your point? :oldlol:

And your clear memory of open 2's being automatic in the 90's is wrong, since the stats say otherwise. Stats>your opinion.

1997 the league had already began to deteriorate due to the influx of the AI, Jerry Stackhouses of the world, the 'I wanna be like Mike' generation.

[plowking]

1997 the league had already began to deteriorate due to the influx of the AI, Jerry Stackhouses of the world, the 'I wanna be like Mike' generation.

Yep, of course. :sleeping

This conversation got boring with your lame excuses and arguments in 3 posts. Congrats.

[90sgoat]

Yep, of course. :sleeping

This conversation got boring with your lame excuses and arguments in 3 posts. Congrats.

It's boring because you lack the brain power to follow the argument.

Here is another, we need more data before we can make a conclusion, such as which percentage of mid range shots are contested vs non-contested in the data above.

Players only take mid range shots today if they're completely open.

That's why I asked the guy for percentages of open mid range jumpers.

[Rake2204]

There's good points to both sides of this discussion. The league's current play style (very heavy on the pick-and-roll) might minimize opportunities for mid-range, alongside the super spread treys-for-days movement.

However, that does not necessarily mean the mid-range shot is inefficient in and of itself. As mentioned, it depends on the types of mid-range jumpers and who's shooting them, but there's plenty of room for them to be the right play depending on circumstances.

For instance, in my opinion, there's a difference between the mid-range J's that came from a high volume shooter who squares up, jab steps four times with a defender in his face before firing a contested look over and over, and a guy like Richard Hamilton, who often sprung free off of curls for clean, accurate, and efficient looks.

No matter the era, a clean Richard Hamilton jumper from 15 is a good and worthy shot. Is it as effective as a dunk? No. Will it yield as much as a wide open Stephen Curry three? No. But open, squared up mid-range by capable shooters still has its place.

As is often the case, analytics are very useful, but conclusions from the numbers may be most effective only when also taking the game itself into account. And there are a litany of circumstances that occur on the basketball court that will keep the mid-range alive and considered effective for those who do it right.

[90sgoat]

There's good points to both sides of this discussion. The league's current play style (very heavy on the pick-and-roll) might minimize opportunities for mid-range, alongside the super spread treys-for-days movement.

However, that does not necessarily mean the mid-range shot is inefficient in and of itself. As mentioned, it depends on the types of mid-range jumpers and who's shooting them, but there's plenty of room for them to be the right play depending on circumstances.

For instance, in my opinion, there's a difference between the mid-range J's that came from a high volume shooter who squares up, jab steps four times with a defender in his face before firing a contested look over and over, and a guy like Richard Hamilton, who often sprung free off of curls for clean, accurate, and efficient looks.

No matter the era, a clean Richard Hamilton jumper from 15 is a good and worthy shot. Is it as effective as a dunk? No. Will it yield as much as a wide open Stephen Curry three? No. But open, squared up mid-range by capable shooters still has its place.

Thanks, that exactly the point.

3Ball showed an example with Russel Westbrook who shoots a lot of semi-open jumpers from many times the secondary break (before the defense is set up, but after primary fastbreak), which is in fact exactly the kind of VERY typical 80s shot.

Now Kawhi Leonard does almost all his damage now from the mid range taking pages out of Kobe and MJs playbook with spins, jabs and off screen moves. That is ALSO a very high percentage shot and is a VERY typical 90s shot.

What is NOT an effective mid range shot is Lebron jab stebbing four times then shooting an off balance contested two or a dribble step back long two, but the thing is, those shots were very rare in the 80s/90s.

The fact is that like with Okafor the 19 year old getting what he wants in the paint, players like Rip Hamilton sure as hell would also get what they want today.

People seem to have forgotten that Warriors played AWFUL in the first couple of games, Klay Thompson and Curry NOT able to hit their 3s at the same rate at all. Klay Thompson laid an egg Harden style in the finals.

This is why the mid range and post is important because in the finals, you have to be able to go get an easy bucket and you have to be unpredictable.

[dhsilv]

The goal of an offense is to score. So we should assume more shot in an area are generally better shot as far as points to shots go. Case and point there are more shots in the paint than anywhere else. A good shooter will get a clean look, period. Basketball favors the offensive player. I doubt we can get the details you want unless you watch and track every game yourself or get some grad students to do it. I can see what else is out there but ha ing just this is amazing to given someone had to watch these games and write this down then put into a database.

[I<3NBA]

the most efficient shot is the one that's open.

you just have to train your players to drain an open shot at a 80% clip.

it's disgusting that you're a professional player yet can't make an open shot.

[Dragonyeuw]

There's good points to both sides of this discussion. The league's current play style (very heavy on the pick-and-roll) might minimize opportunities for mid-range, alongside the super spread treys-for-days movement.

However, that does not necessarily mean the mid-range shot is inefficient in and of itself. As mentioned, it depends on the types of mid-range jumpers and who's shooting them, but there's plenty of room for them to be the right play depending on circumstances.

For instance, in my opinion, there's a difference between the mid-range J's that came from a high volume shooter who squares up, jab steps four times with a defender in his face before firing a contested look over and over, and a guy like Richard Hamilton, who often sprung free off of curls for clean, accurate, and efficient looks.

No matter the era, a clean Richard Hamilton jumper from 15 is a good and worthy shot. Is it as effective as a dunk? No. Will it yield as much as a wide open Stephen Curry three? No. But open, squared up mid-range by capable shooters still has its place.

As is often the case, analytics are very useful, but conclusions from the numbers may be most effective only when also taking the game itself into account. And there are a litany of circumstances that occur on the basketball court that will keep the mid-range alive and considered effective for those who do it right.

How DARE you post something sensible on this forum!!!

[3ball]

http://i.imgur.com/Elct7m7.png


^^^^ Where does it show midrange percentages being lower???.... The data shows that midrange percentages are exactly the same!!!!!... Infact, percentages frorm 5-19 feet are HIGHER today!!...

What data are you guys looking at where it shows midrange percentage decreasing?... The data does NOT show that
.

[ClipperRevival]

There's good points to both sides of this discussion. The league's current play style (very heavy on the pick-and-roll) might minimize opportunities for mid-range, alongside the super spread treys-for-days movement.

However, that does not necessarily mean the mid-range shot is inefficient in and of itself. As mentioned, it depends on the types of mid-range jumpers and who's shooting them, but there's plenty of room for them to be the right play depending on circumstances.

For instance, in my opinion, there's a difference between the mid-range J's that came from a high volume shooter who squares up, jab steps four times with a defender in his face before firing a contested look over and over, and a guy like Richard Hamilton, who often sprung free off of curls for clean, accurate, and efficient looks.

No matter the era, a clean Richard Hamilton jumper from 15 is a good and worthy shot. Is it as effective as a dunk? No. Will it yield as much as a wide open Stephen Curry three? No. But open, squared up mid-range by capable shooters still has its place.

As is often the case, analytics are very useful, but conclusions from the numbers may be most effective only when also taking the game itself into account. And there are a litany of circumstances that occur on the basketball court that will keep the mid-range alive and considered effective for those who do it right.

Or taking a shot within the flow of the offense or forcing a shot. Shots taken in rhythm and within the flow are much better shots. I don't even know if they have numbers for this though. Would be interesting.

[ClipperRevival]

I don't understand people who take concrete stances on certain issues. Like saying a certain shot or style is good/bad. To me, the most important thing is to play within the flow of the offense. If you do that, your shots will be in rhythm.

That's why stats are misleading. Sometimes a guy can take 12 shots but those 12 shots might've come at the expense of the offense. On the flipside, a guy can take 20 shots in 1 quarter and still not be considered a ball hog because most of his shots just came within the flow of the offense. As long as you are playing the right way, that's all that matters.

[3ball]

interesting topic

[3ball]

I don't understand people who take concrete stances on certain issues. Like saying a certain shot or style is good/bad. To me, the most important thing is to play within the flow of the offense. If you do that, your shots will be in rhythm.

That's why stats are misleading. Sometimes a guy can take 12 shots but those 12 shots might've come at the expense of the offense. On the flipside, a guy can take 20 shots in 1 quarter and still not be considered a ball hog because most of his shots just came within the flow of the offense. As long as you are playing the right way, that's all that matters.
Obviously, midrange shots aren't bad things.

The issue for me is how easy anyone can GET a midrange shot in today's game.. Today's defenses leave the paint open to defend 3-pointers and abide by defensive 3 seconds, but they still have to recover and protect the rim - so something's gotta give, and it's midrange..

In order to accomplish the magic trick of guarding 3-pointers while still protecting the rim, defenses must give up midrange - we saw this the other night with Westbrook, who dominated OT by hitting 4 straight uncontested, midrange jumpers, shown in 4 gifs here (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=388366).

Otoh, defenses didn't guard the 3-point line in previous eras, so the paint was crowded, which allowed defenses to guard midrange and protect the rim at the same time..

[ClipperRevival]

Obviously, midrange shots aren't bad things.

The issue for me is how easy anyone can GET a midrange shot in today's game.. Today's defenses leave the paint open to defend 3-pointers and abide by defensive 3 seconds, but they still have to recover and protect the rim - so something's gotta give, and it's midrange..

In order to accomplish the magic trick of guarding 3-pointers while still protecting the rim, defenses must give up midrange - we saw this the other night with Westbrook, who dominated OT by hitting 4 straight uncontested, midrange jumpers, shown in 4 gifs here (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=388366).

Otoh, defenses didn't guard the 3-point line in previous eras, so the paint was crowded, which allowed defenses to guard midrange and protect the rim at the same time..

I would agree that midrange shots are easier to get off today given the emphasis on the 3 and how that opens up the court. But you are preaching to the choir as my game has always been based on the midrange. I have always viewed this as a crucial shot in basketball as long as it's in rhythm and not forced. And i also see no problem with pulling up for a jumper from 10-12 feet in transition ala Westbrook. I don't care what the numbers say. If you are confident in that shot and it's within the flow, you should take it.

[kunk75]

this idea pervades all levels my sons aau and high school coaches don't want anything but 3s, drives to layups or putbacks off missed 3s and layups. 18-20 footers get you yanked out of the game

[90sgoat]

this idea pervades all levels my sons aau and high school coaches don't want anything but 3s, drives to layups or putbacks off missed 3s and layups. 18-20 footers get you yanked out of the game

And that's why you see it in the NBA.

[90sgoat]

I would agree that midrange shots are easier to get off today given the emphasis on the 3 and how that opens up the court. But you are preaching to the choir as my game has always been based on the midrange. I have always viewed this as a crucial shot in basketball as long as it's in rhythm and not forced. And i also see no problem with pulling up for a jumper from 10-12 feet in transition ala Westbrook. I don't care what the numbers say. If you are confident in that shot and it's within the flow, you should take it.

What do the numbers say though?

Not clear at all!

We do not have important stats on contested vs uncontested pr. year, player, years in college etc.

The autist stat nerds seem to be unable to use their eyes which would tell them that the mid range shot is VERY effective if you are good at it.

[GIF REACTION]

budadiii detected

poor mans 3ball

[aj1987]

3pt shooting is more effective than mid-range. How do you idiots not see that. Helps space the floor and they're more efficient.

Heck, you need to shoot just 33% from the 3pt line to be as efficient as a mid-range shooter.

[90sgoat]

3pt shooting is more effective than mid-range. How do you idiots not see that. Helps space the floor and they're more efficient.

Heck, you need to shoot just 33% from the 3pt line to be as efficient as a mid-range shooter.

Ha!

This is autist nerd logic.

You do realize that right?

You're trying to boil a very complex game down to very basic math.

First of all, you're not factoring in the higher amount of free throws for 2 point shots. Second, you're not factoring in the Game Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_game), meaning that if you live by this rule (3 point only), then the opposite team will have an information advantage over you, which we saw clearly exposed in the finals.

Third, you assume that regular season stats translate to playoff stats, which it clearly doesn't.

14/15 3 point field goal leaders:

GS - 40% (playoffs: 37%)
Atlanta - 38% (playoffs 31%)
Clips - 38% (playoffs 33%)
Cleveland 37% (playoffs 34%)

It's pretty obvious, there is a massive drop off in efficiency of the 3 point shot in the playoffs.

[ClipperRevival]

this idea pervades all levels my sons aau and high school coaches don't want anything but 3s, drives to layups or putbacks off missed 3s and layups. 18-20 footers get you yanked out of the game

This is so sad. And can explain why fundamentals aren't being as strongly stressed as it should be.

[90sgoat]

This is so sad. And can explain why fundamentals aren't being as strongly stressed as it should be.

When I played in the mid 90s, you were nothing if you couldn't hit an open 2. If you stood and spammed 3s only then you'd find yourself on the bench real quick.

[ClipperRevival]

When I played in the mid 90s, you were nothing if you couldn't hit an open 2. If you stood and spammed 3s only then you'd find yourself on the bench real quick.

Ditto. The 3 was not viewed as a weapon like it is today. It was viewed more as a last resort type play. But it really is sad to see that coaches are FORCING these kids to play a dummied down style of game because basketball is so much more than just shooting 3s or layups. But that's what the NBA does so everyone else follows suit.

[ClipperRevival]

What do the numbers say though?

Not clear at all!

We do not have important stats on contested vs uncontested pr. year, player, years in college etc.

The autist stat nerds seem to be unable to use their eyes which would tell them that the mid range shot is VERY effective if you are good at it.

I don't care about the numbers. All I know is if I get the ball within the flow of the game and I'm open, I'm taking that 15-17 footer. Big difference between taking a shit in rhythm and forcing it. When you force long 2s, that's bad.

[Dro]

this idea pervades all levels my sons aau and high school coaches don't want anything but 3s, drives to layups or putbacks off missed 3s and layups. 18-20 footers get you yanked out of the game
And there it is.........

[Fallen Angel]

Ditto. The 3 was not viewed as a weapon like it is today. It was viewed more as a last resort type play. But it really is sad to see that coaches are FORCING these kids to play a dummied down style of game because basketball is so much more than just shooting 3s or layups. But that's what the NBA does so everyone else follows suit.
If you want to play in the NBA then why wouldn't you want to practice hard on your threes and layups?

Who in the world practices only on their midrange jumpshot and expects that to translate to the NBA, let alone get him drafted.

[Dro]

3pt shooting is more effective than mid-range. How do you idiots not see that. Helps space the floor and they're more efficient.

Heck, you need to shoot just 33% from the 3pt line to be as efficient as a mid-range shooter.
This is stupid...If you're shooting a bunch of 3's..you're not getting to the free throw line, you're not making the defense work by guarding you in the post, off of pick and rolls, guys cutting to the hoop and if its contested, you're taking a 25 foot contested jump shot and you think everyone else is an idiot?

A guy who can hit an 18 foot jumper also spaces the floor and its an easier shot. But because its 2 points instead of 3, somehow that makes it a worse shot...Makes no sense.....

[Dro]

If you want to play in the NBA then why wouldn't you want to practice hard on your threes and layups?

Who in the world practices only on their midrange jumpshot and expects that to translate to the NBA, let alone get him drafted.
Plenty of guys made a living off of mid-range jumpers in the 80's and 90's...

Mark Aquirre
Vinnie Johnson
Richard Hamilton
Detlef Shrempf
Rik Smits
Latrell Sprewell

Man let me stop there because I could go on all day long. Nowadays its hard to even come up with 5 guys who primarily score off of mid-range jump shots

Even great 3 point shooters like Reggie Miller, Alan Houston, Dale Ellis, Hersey Hawkins, Jeff Hornacek and others made a living off of midrange jumpers by pump faking the 3, taking 1 dribble in and hitting that mid-range shot...

[90sgoat]

Plenty of guys made a living off of mid-range jumpers in the 80's and 90's...

Mark Aquirre
Vinnie Johnson
Richard Hamilton
Detlef Shrempf
Rik Smits

Man let me stop at 5 because I could go on all day long. Nowadays its hard to even come up with 5 guys who primarily score off of mid-range jump shots

Even great 3 point shooters like Reggie Miller, Alan Houston, Dale Ellis, Hersey Hawkins, Jeff Hornacek and others made a living off of midrange jumpers by pump faking the 3, taking 1 dribble in and hitting that mid-range shot...

The bigger issue is that today's players simply can't hit an open jumper. It used to be automatic, now players stand like deer caught in headlight, wait wait brick.

The fact is that the 3 point shot is easier to learn than the mid range jump shot, because with the 3 point shot you always have the same rythm, you always have the line, you position your feet to the line, time and time again, the mechanics are the same, the distance the exact same every time. With the 2 point shot, each shot is different in distance, each a little different, you need to have a natural smooth stroke to hit it.

[Dro]

The bigger issue is that today's players simply can't hit an open jumper. It used to be automatic, now players stand like deer caught in headlight, wait wait brick.

The fact is that the 3 point shot is easier to learn than the mid range jump shot, because with the 3 point shot you always have the same rythm, you always have the line, you position your feet to the line, time and time again, the mechanics are the same, the distance the exact same every time. With the 2 point shot, each shot is different in distance, each a little different, you need to have a natural smooth stroke to hit it.
Good point...And also you're open more often at the 3 point line because its farther away from the hoop. An open mid-range shot can quickly turn into a rushed shot over a defender, or having to shoot a fadeaway or a post turnaround jumper, etc.

[ClipperRevival]

If you want to play in the NBA then why wouldn't you want to practice hard on your threes and layups?

Who in the world practices only on their midrange jumpshot and expects that to translate to the NBA, let alone get him drafted.

No problem working on those aspects but when coaches are yanking a guy for taking long 2s, I have an issue with that. If the shot is within the flow of the game, it shouldn't be an issue. My point is, you need to work on all aspects of your game and not focus exclusively on just a few.

[aj1987]

This is stupid...If you're shooting a bunch of 3's..you're not getting to the free throw line, you're not making the defense work by guarding you in the post, off of pick and rolls, guys cutting to the hoop and if its contested, you're taking a 25 foot contested jump shot and you think everyone else is an idiot?
Put 3pt shooters around a good slasher. Drive, get 2 points, or FT's, or both. If contested and doubled in the post, kick it out to the open shooter. How do you not understand that? You think defenses leave 3pt shooters alone? :facepalm

Still better basketball than taking a contested mid-range shot. More efficient as well.

Oh, and you think shooting contested fadeaway mid-range shots will get you to the FT line?


A guy who can hit an 18 foot jumper also spaces the floor and its an easier shot. But because its 2 points instead of 3, somehow that makes it a worse shot...Makes no sense.....
:oldlol:

The 3 doesn't space the floor? Also, I never said it was a stupid shot. It's more efficient though.

Lets do some basic elementary math.

Team 1 - 10 FGA's converted at 50%, all midrange = 10 points
Team 2 - 10 FGA's converted at 40%, all 3's = 12 points

[GrapeApe]

The main issue I have when people discuss the efficiency of 3 pointers is they gloss over missed shots. For example, I'd rather have a player score 18 points on 9/15, all being 2 point FG's, than a player score 18 points on 6/15, all being 3 point FG's. Missed shots are inherently bad, and that's why raw FG% is still an important statistic. If all else is equal, I want the player who misses fewer shots.

[dhsilv]

I'm honestly scared to post this given I doubt it'll be read correctly but just a breakdown on 2's vs 3's going back to the 80's. I'd spend time pointing out defenses are different today and driving a LOT of this, but perhaps best with just the data.

http://i.imgur.com/iBlixpZ.jpg

[dhsilv]

Now I can get better data I think. It'll just take more work. The last graph took about 2 minutes since I had the data already to go. That said...on the topic.

1. Players are just fine at shooting. You don't see Dirk shooting open 2's. You see guys like Rondo shooting open mid range 2's. I think you're greatly missing that defenses do a good job at selecting WHO takes those open shots. Nobody is guarding a guy like westbrook in any era so lets not look at the best of the best.

2. The goal is has and always will be to score in the paint. The spaced out 3's are just another way to pull defenses away from the middle. As teams started to develop that spacing, people realized that things like corner 3's were freaking deadly! As a result teams realized they needed to chase good 3 point shooters away from the 3. An open curry 3 is worse than an open curry 2.

3. I'll have to dig for data, but the closer to the basket you are, the closer a defender will be. Contested shots we all know are lower percentage shots.

4. We need to see data on offensive rebound rates on long 3's as well. Even if the shots create less points per shot, if you get the ball back at a higher rate, that value add should be included.

As for mid range guys. Durrant and dirk are about as good as you get in any era. Those two don't have defenders leaving them wide open either.

Oh and just because it has to be said. Man there was so awful defense in the 80's. There were open shots everywhere for the better teams to take advantage of. I'd also bet while I don't think height has gone up much, I'd venture to bet money wingspan has increased, which makes contesting shots easier.

[3ball]

^^^^ Three-pointers have replaced some of the 2-pointers.. We knew that already, so I'm not sure what the point is..

The data shows that 2-point FG% is the same today as it was before.

[90sgoat]

I'm honestly scared to post this given I doubt it'll be read correctly but just a breakdown on 2's vs 3's going back to the 80's. I'd spend time pointing out defenses are different today and driving a LOT of this, but perhaps best with just the data.

http://i.imgur.com/iBlixpZ.jpg

Let me tell you how I read it.

You have a clear marked decline in 2 point shooting around the time I told you - the AI, Jerry Stackhouse generation, continuing into the rule changes at 2006 eliminating hand check and the def 3 zone.

Your data backs my hypothesis.

Players got significantly worse at 2 point shooting so the league changed the rules to allow for more open shots and more penetration.

If the rules were the same today, we would see similar poor 2 point percentages, because as we all know, it's not 2 point jumpers the league are taking today but uncontested drives.

Of course, if you really want to break it down, you need data for mid range jumpers but you likely don't have that data going that far back.

As of now, I'd say there's more to suggest I am right - players simply got much worse at 2 point shots.

[90sgoat]

Oh and just because it has to be said. Man there was so awful defense in the 80's. There were open shots everywhere for the better teams to take advantage of. I'd also bet while I don't think height has gone up much, I'd venture to bet money wingspan has increased, which makes contesting shots easier.

A big part of that was that teams RAN the ball up, not walked it up. When you run the ball up you essentially have a secondary break situation, the kind of situation that Westbrook excels at. Height hasn't gone up but declined slightly.

[3ball]

3. the closer to the basket you are, the closer a defender will be. Contested shots we all know are lower percentage shots.



This is why pace was faster in previous eras that only shot 2-pointers - we all know the reason teams run offense is to get an open shot.. But 2-pointers don't need to be as open as 3-pointers, so less offense needed to be ran, and pace was faster.

But again, the 2-pointers were more contested - teams ran up and down taking contested 2 pointer after contested 2 pointer... And without the 3-point line, there was a higher concentration of defenders in the 2-point areas - defenses guarded a smaller surface area.

[dhsilv]

Let me tell you how I read it.

You have a clear marked decline in 2 point shooting around the time I told you - the AI, Jerry Stackhouse generation, continuing into the rule changes at 2006 eliminating hand check and the def 3 zone.

Your data backs my hypothesis.

Players got significantly worse at 2 point shooting so the league changed the rules to allow for more open shots and more penetration.

If the rules were the same today, we would see similar poor 2 point percentages, because as we all know, it's not 2 point jumpers the league are taking today but uncontested drives.

Of course, if you really want to break it down, you need data for mid range jumpers but you likely don't have that data going that far back.

As of now, I'd say there's more to suggest I am right - players simply got much worse at 2 point shots.

I remember the end of MJ's career and the few years after it. The NBA got physical and I mean PHYSICAL! Defenses were killing people. Now...the idea at the time was that defenses were just getting too good or refs were letting them play too physically.

http://i.imgur.com/Rzk4Ccj.jpg

As you'll note before I hate to get TOOO into making claims over data. The reason being, we often see what we want to see. However I had a point and wanted a picture so I'll forgive myself, hopefully you will too.

The play count here is based on I think I used 750 minutes min played. We see what I believe is an 80's decline in shooting due to defenses giving a crap. However there's a HUGE point this data makes. 95 was a peak year and 96 was the start of a decline.

96 was an expansion year with two new teams being added. We compound that with refs letting players get more physical (no data to support this one) and I don't think you have a case based on this data alone to conclude anything other than field goal shooting declined and now it's going back up to basically where it's been historically (which is in part why imo this is one of the strongest eras in basketball due to higher player count and the overall quality product).

[dhsilv]

This is why pace was faster in previous eras that only shot 2-pointers - we all know the reason teams run offense is to get an open shot.. But 2-pointers don't need to be as open as 3-pointers, so less offense needed to be ran, and pace was faster.

But again, the 2-pointers were more contested - teams ran up and down taking contested 2 pointer after contested 2 pointer... And without the 3-point line, there was a higher concentration of defenders in the 2-point areas - defenses guarded a smaller surface area.

Are you talking about the 60's and 70's when basketball was horrible? Or are you talking about when teams didn't exploit the 3?

Either way, you're likely not getting the logic fully. Faster pace wears out weaker teams. Good teams have depth so running can wear out the other team. Additionally, the more possessions, all else equal, the higher the chance is that the better team wins. A good coach understands that the more his team has the ball, the more likely they are to win if they're the better team. The NBA is a copy cat league....is the best teams do it the worst teams do it.

We can go on for days on game theory and the mathmaics here. We may not ever agree. Now I do recall hearing some commentary in the past from some of the greats of that era (the high paced era) talking about why they played so fast. It has slipped my mind, but if you have some video links post away. I'd be interested to hear it again.

That said the argument that defenses were too good, I don't buy it. I've seen a lot of play off games from that era or at least enough to have a feel for it. I wasn't watching great defenses even in the finals.

[3ball]

horseshit

[3ball]

(which is in part why imo this is one of the strongest eras in basketball due to higher player count and the overall quality product).


You see what you want to see, not the truth.

A league with less players is a tougher league - in a 500-player league, the bottom 200 players wouldn't make the league in a 300-player league - the bottom 200 guys from today's NBA wouldn't make the NBA in the 80's.

Also, today's product isn't stronger.. Previous eras had better midrange and inside players.. Today's game has better 3-point shooters and more ball-domination.. Today's game has slower pace (from all the threes) and less contested shots.. There's a strong case that the product is much weaker.

Btw, the 90's had 30 teams too - so it's no different.. The expansion drafts only drafted EXISTING NBA PLAYERS.. Some of those expansion teams were much better than the worst teams we have today..

[kunk75]

This is so sad. And can explain why fundamentals aren't being as strongly stressed as it should be.

yeah thats why i have his trainer work with him only on fundamentals kids don't get them elsewhere anymore and AAU coaches barely practice they spend most of their time on the phone recruiting. my kid has a nice mid range game but shot 55% from 3 and takes 8-10 a game and i really do prefer the 3 as a weapon. it gets a lit tougher when the kids are younger and don't have that kind of range because by 6th grade they are expected to have range from 3.

[kunk75]

don't even get me started on ball iq and screens and such, half the kids my son play with have no idea how to move without the ball and virtually no one knows how to shoot. he's getting noticed as a 5'10 combo guard and the only smallish white kid on his team by having pretty much unlimited range. he probably takes 400-500 jumpers a day from all over the court and i've had a bunch of college scouts tell me he has one of the prettiest jumpers they've seen and a quick release. we play at national tourneys and i can say i see less than 10% of even legit d1 prospects who have a fundamentally sound repeatable shot from 15 or 25 feet. the nba is now littered with aau kids who can dunk in traffic and "jump out of the gym" but don't even understand an off ball screen.

[ShawkFactory]

You see what you want to see, not the truth.

A league with less players is a tougher league - in a 500-player league, the bottom 200 players wouldn't make the league in a 300-player league - the bottom 200 guys from today's NBA wouldn't make the NBA in the 80's.

Also, today's product isn't stronger.. Previous eras had better midrange and inside players.. Today's game has better 3-point shooters and more ball-domination.. Today's game has slower pace (from all the threes) and less contested shots.. There's a strong case that the product is much weaker.

Btw, the 90's had 30 teams too - so it's no different.. The expansion drafts only drafted EXISTING NBA PLAYERS.. Some of those expansion teams were much better than the worst teams we have today..
YOU saying to another that he sees what he wants to see? :oldlol:

[dhsilv]

Btw, the 90's had 30 teams too - so it's no different.. The expansion drafts only drafted EXISTING NBA PLAYERS.. Some of those expansion teams were much better than the worst teams we have today..

There were 27 teams until the 96 expansion. less just a few years prior to that.

You're too dumb or just act like it to continue with this topic. I sadly can't have an adult conversation with you as you refuse to even attempt to have a discussion.

[juju151111]

There were 27 teams until the 96 expansion. less just a few years prior to that.

You're too dumb or just act like it to continue with this topic. I sadly can't have an adult conversation with you as you refuse to even attempt to have a discussion.
Why does any one have a conversation with him. He bias has hell

[dhsilv]

Why does any one have a conversation with him. He bias has hell

He'll have like two sentences that sound like he knows what he's talking about. Then when someone engages him, he sounds like a babbling moron who doesn't even understand the words he typed (or copy and pastes). Bias is not really a big deal. We all have them. Adults can discuss them openly and while they may not change their minds, they've likely created reasonable arguments that are interesting to hear. I can't tell if he's actually in his teens and just really likes 90's basketball games or if he's much older and just has some social issues along with some mental ones. If it's the latter I somewhat feel bad for being rude, but when people go over a topic 100 times, post data, stats, and graphs to help him and then he just goes back to citing things that are irrelevant to the topic...

[Richesly]

Not being bias, but Al Horford is probably one of the best mid range shooters in the history of the game.

[juju151111]

He'll have like two sentences that sound like he knows what he's talking about. Then when someone engages him, he sounds like a babbling moron who doesn't even understand the words he typed (or copy and pastes). Bias is not really a big deal. We all have them. Adults can discuss them openly and while they may not change their minds, they've likely created reasonable arguments that are interesting to hear. I can't tell if he's actually in his teens and just really likes 90's basketball games or if he's much older and just has some social issues along with some mental ones. If it's the latter I somewhat feel bad for being rude, but when people go over a topic 100 times, post data, stats, and graphs to help him and then he just goes back to citing things that are irrelevant to the topic...
The thing is no matter what he will repeat the samething. Im a Mj supporter too, but that guy just irritates me. Anyways i agree with almost everything you say. The late 90s and early 00s the defense improved some which is why i think the %dropped. The changes in 05 and refs emphasis in 06 definitely helpedm

[Uncle Drew]

Not being bias, but Al Horford is probably one of the best mid range shooters in the history of the game.
He's a career 45% midrange shooter.

[dhsilv]

The thing is no matter what he will repeat the samething. Im a Mj supporter too, but that guy just irritates me. Anyways i agree with almost everything you say. The late 90s and early 00s the defense improved some which is why i think the %dropped. The changes in 05 and refs emphasis in 06 definitely helpedm

Lets not forget expansion here. It was an important impact. There were 9% more players playing significant minutes between 95 and 96. Even if you think it was minor, we're not exactly talking about huge drop offs in field goal shooting.