RIP Midrange shot. the death of the inbetween game visualized

[STATUTORY]

https://i1.wp.com/flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/shot-selection2010-19-1.gif
:facepalm
this is not evolution, this is devolution. argument against midrange game is entirely strawman, based on misunderstanding of data

[RRR3]

It

[superduper]

Lol at it drastically changing as soon as Warriors won the finals aka the Curry revolution happened.

But Curry haters tell me it was the Rockets that revolutionized the game :facepalm

[Shogon]

Whether you like it or not, the math doesn't lie. Math is math. The three point shot is a better shot depending on the level of contest. It's just math and that's all that it is. The fact that it took the league so long to figure this out just proves that people are stupid.


You may not like it, and I may not like it, but math is math and it doesn't care about opinions. That's it. It's that simple.

If the league wants to do something about it they have to adjust field goal values in come capacity.

[SpaceJam2]

Almost as if 3s are worth more than 2s

:eek:

[STATUTORY]

Whether you like it or not, the math doesn't lie. Math is math. The three point shot is a better shot depending on the level of contest. It's just math and that's all that it is. The fact that it took the league so long to figure this out just proves that people are stupid.


You may not like it, and I may not like it, but math is math and it doesn't care about opinions. That's it. It's that simple.

If the league wants to do something about it they have to adjust field goal values in come capacity.
the operative words in that sentence is depending on level of contest

NBA players are routinely turning down open midrange shot for contested layups or 3's

that's devolution

[Shogon]

the operative words in that sentence is depending on level of contest

NBA players are routinely turning down open midrange shot for contested layups or 3's

that's devolution

I don't think they're turning down wide open mid range shots for contested threes. But maybe. I think what you're seeing is that people just play further away from the basket for multiple reasons now and they're more likely to take contested threes than contested mid range shots, because that's math.

[DMAVS41]

Most players can't make mid-range jump shots at a high enough rate to warrant taking them. This is just a fact...it has probably always been a fact since the 3 point line was introduced.

That does not mean the mid-range is without value...it simply means that only a select number of players can do consistent damage to the opposition while taking it.

Andrew Wiggins, for example, based on his career ability to shoot mid-range...should stop shooting those shots because he doesn't make them at a high enough rate. He is currently making a far bigger impact offensively by attacking the rim more, taking more 3's, and taking less long 2's...

It is called just being smarter.

Doesn't change the fact that if a player can develop and grow a great mid-range game...they definitely should...

But too many of you guys don't understand just how difficult it is to get good enough at it to warrant taking a high volume of shots there. Just not that many players in history were good enough at those shots to take them often over 3's or attacking the rim.

[Bronbron23]

Lol at it drastically changing as soon as Warriors won the finals aka the Curry revolution happened.

But Curry haters tell me it was the Rockets that revolutionized the game :facepalm
It was neither. You can blame daryl morey for this 3 point shit show. Blame steph for making it popular amongst the youth and fans.

[Bronbron23]

[QUOTE=RRR3]It

[RRR3]

Midrange and post play are the most useful shots in the plyoffs when the game gets physical and tight. Its no coincidence that the last 3 players to win 5 chips or more were elite in both.
Whatever 3ball

[DMAVS41]

Midrange and post play are the most useful shots in the plyoffs when the game gets physical and tight. Its no coincidence that the last 3 players to win 5 chips or more were elite in both.

It is useful if you are Dirk/Leonard/Jordan/Bird/Kobe/McHale/Durant/Kobe/Paul...etc.

It isn't useful if you are like most players in NBA history that can't come close to converting contested 2's at a high enough rate to warrant taking them over attacking the rim, passing to a teammate, or shooting a 3.

[FireDavidKahn]

People never understand that the "death of the mid range" is more about discouraging players who are bad from making midrange shots from taking them rather than eliminating them altogether.

Very few players in the league can shoot the midrange with any consistency and volume to where it is actually worth it. Most of those that can are stars.

[DMAVS41]

People never understand that the "death of the mid range" is more about discouraging players who are bad from making midrange shots from taking them rather than eliminating them altogether.

Very few players in the league can shoot the midrange with any consistency and volume to where it is actually worth it. Most of those that can are stars.

:applause:

[FireDavidKahn]

Most players can't make mid-range jump shots at a high enough rate to warrant taking them. This is just a fact...it has probably always been a fact since the 3 point line was introduced.

That does not mean the mid-range is without value...it simply means that only a select number of players can do consistent damage to the opposition while taking it.

Andrew Wiggins, for example, based on his career ability to shoot mid-range...should stop shooting those shots because he doesn't make them at a high enough rate. He is currently making a far bigger impact offensively by attacking the rim more, taking more 3's, and taking less long 2's...

It is called just being smarter.

Doesn't change the fact that if a player can develop and grow a great mid-range game...they definitely should...

But too many of you guys don't understand just how difficult it is to get good enough at it to warrant taking a high volume of shots there. Just not that many players in history were good enough at those shots to take them often over 3's or attacking the rim.

:wtf:

Someone else 100% gets it:wtf: :applause: :bowdown: :cheers:

[Bronbron23]

Whatever 3ball
Not 3ball dude.

[Ainosterhaspie]

Who cares! I seriously don't get the obsession with midrange. What about it is special or exciting that people get worked up about it slowly phasing out of the game?

[Bronbron23]

It is useful if you are Dirk/Leonard/Jordan/Bird/Kobe/McHale/Durant/Kobe/Paul...etc.

It isn't useful if you are like most players in NBA history that can't come close to converting contested 2's at a high enough rate to warrant taking them over attacking the rim, passing to a teammate, or shooting a 3.
Well no obviously it dosnt make sense to jack up a midrange or post shot if its not a strength of your game. Im Just saying that players that have elite midrange win more chips than players who are elite in shooting threes. The warriors and steph would seem like the exception but kd had an elite mid range also.

[DMAVS41]

Well no obviously it dosnt make sense to jack up a midrange or post shot if its not a strength of your game. Im Just saying that players that have elite midrange win more chips than players who are elite in shooting threes. The warriors and steph would seem like the exception but kd had an elite mid range also.

Curry/Klay are such great shooters that pretty much any shot is good for them as well.

To your point...well, yea, but that can kind of be translated into...better players win more titles....and I also think it is a really narrow view to focus solely on the mid-range when so many other factors...even just on offense...influence titles.

I think it is fair to say that the mid-range is a great weapon for the players that can effectively utilize it...and a huge detriment to players that take them, but don't make them often enough to warrant taking them.

[STATUTORY]

Curry/Klay are such great shooters that pretty much any shot is good for them as well.

To your point...well, yea, but that can kind of be translated into...better players win more titles....and I also think it is a really narrow view to focus solely on the mid-range when so many other factors...even just on offense...influence titles.

I think it is fair to say that the mid-range is a great weapon for the players that can effectively utilize it...and a huge detriment to players that take them, but don't make them often enough to warrant taking them.
So you are admitting the midrange is what separates great players from championship level players?

I mean look at the halfcourt, more than half the space is the inbetween area. if you don't have a good offensive game in that space, you are a limited player. Telling players that midrange shot is inefficient because most players suck at those shots, is giving the wrong advice from a player development perspective. They are getting the wrong message. Players now think there's something fundamnetally wrong with the midrange game, rather than they need to get better at it.

[DMAVS41]

So you are admitting the midrange is what separates great players from championship level players?

I mean look at the halfcourt, more than half the space is the inbetween area. if you don't have a good offensive game in that space, you are a limited player. Telling players that midrange shot is inefficient because most players suck at those shots, is giving the wrong advice from a player development perspective. They are getting the wrong message. Players now think there's something fundamnetally wrong with the midrange game, rather than they need to get better at it.

Admitting?

I have no idea why one would use a word like that. Like I have some issue with a jump shot when my favorite player of all-time might be the best ever at it.

Lebron James sure as hell is a championship level player and I wouldn't put him on a list of great mid-range jump shooters.

I'm saying that, like other aspects of basketball, it is clearly part of the game and can be super valuable. But isn't very valuable...and is actually a detriment...when most players take it. What is hard to understand about this?

You really think Giannis isn't a championship level player? There are so many ways to be great and win in this league...that is why it is interesting and fun to watch.

Well, Demar Derozan and the Spurs are playing like it is 1993...how is that working out for them?

[SomeBlackDude]

funny that the handful of guys who are great midrange shooters have been racking up rings and fmvps the past few seasons.


Who cares! I seriously don't get the obsession with midrange. What about it is special or exciting that people get worked up about it slowly phasing out of the game?

makes for a more dynamic and imo interesting game. i miss the days when you'd get a clash of styles between teams. like you'd have a pick n roll heavy team going up against a defensive juggernaut. or a post up heavy, low pace team vs a 7-sec or less uptempo offense.

now every team plays exactly the same. there is no variety. if you watch one nba squad, you've seen them all. heavy on the dribble iso, pick n' roll, chuck 3s and crash the paint for fts. nothing else.

it's why ratings for nba games are tanking. nobody wants to watch glorified light shootaround, 3-pt shooting contests with no defense being played.

[STATUTORY]

You really think Giannis isn't a championship level player? There are so many ways to be great and win in this league...that is why it is interesting and fun to watch.

obviously any player can win a championship if you surround him with enough talent relative to the rest of the league

but I think it's exponentially more difficult to build championship teams around players with such glaring deficiencies yes. Players without midrange game thrive on mistakes by opposing teams: fastbreaks etc. These opporutnities are fewer and far in between in playoffs, so they are rendered impotent

[DMAVS41]

obviously any player can win a championship if you surround him with sufficient talent relative to the rest of the league

but I think it's more difficult to build around players with such glaring deficiencies yes.

Well, Giannis isn't probably a great example for you so far considering he doesn't have historical help by any means in terms of winning...and he seems okay.

But I definitely agree, like I've said, that the mid-range game can be super valuable.

The point though...is simply that most players aren't good enough at it to warrant taking it.

Nobody is arguing that Dirk or Leonard or Durant or CP3...etc...shouldn't be taking those type of shots. They are arguing that guys like Wiggins shouldn't be taking them...that really is all.

[superduper]

Well, Giannis isn't probably a great example for you so far considering he doesn't have historical help by any means in terms of winning...and he seems okay.

But I definitely agree, like I've said, that the mid-range game can be super valuable.

The point though...is simply that most players aren't good enough at it to warrant taking it.

Nobody is arguing that Dirk or Leonard or Durant or CP3...etc...shouldn't be taking those type of shots. They are arguing that guys like Wiggins shouldn't be taking them...that really is all.

You have a point but I don't know if Wiggins is the right player to be using this year. Isn't he having a turnaround year?

[Bronbron23]

Curry/Klay are such great shooters that pretty much any shot is good for them as well.

To your point...well, yea, but that can kind of be translated into...better players win more titles....and I also think it is a really narrow view to focus solely on the mid-range when so many other factors...even just on offense...influence titles.

I think it is fair to say that the mid-range is a great weapon for the players that can effectively utilize it...and a huge detriment to players that take them, but don't make them often enough to warrant taking them.
Yeah fair enough

[Shogon]

Admitting?

I have no idea why one would use a word like that. Like I have some issue with a jump shot when my favorite player of all-time might be the best ever at it.

You know damn good and well why one would use a word like that... :roll: :roll:

Your next two words after this quote said it all.

[STATUTORY]

Well, Giannis isn't probably a great example for you so far considering he doesn't have historical help by any means in terms of winning...and he seems okay.

But I definitely agree, like I've said, that the mid-range game can be super valuable.

The point though...is simply that most players aren't good enough at it to warrant taking it.

Nobody is arguing that Dirk or Leonard or Durant or CP3...etc...shouldn't be taking those type of shots. They are arguing that guys like Wiggins shouldn't be taking them...that really is all.


I guess where you and I disagree is the relative importance of the midrange game. Giannis may win a ring or 2 if you surround him with 2 other top 10 players (which is unrealistic from a historical perspective, but more possible now in this era of player collusion) but otherwise he will never win a ring because the lack of a midrange game severely limits him in the playoffs. So to me it is a fatal flaw from a championship perspective.

To you it seems like midrange is just any other part of a players game like the the ability to dunk.

[DMAVS41]

I guess where you and I disagree is the relative importance of the midrange game. Giannis may win a ring or 2 if you surround him with 2 other top 10 players (which is unrealistic from a historical perspective, but more possible now in this era of player collusion) but otherwise he will never win a ring because the lack of a midrange game severely limits him in the playoffs. So to me it is a fatal flaw from a championship perspective.

To you it seems like midrange is just any other part of a players game like the the ability to dunk.

How did Durant do in terms of winning when he had loaded rosters in OKC?

He won automatic titles, right?

His ability to drill shots from all over the court made them unbeatable...right?

No, I think it can be an extremely important part of the game...I'm just not going to say Durant at this best was better than Giannis or something automatically because he can drill mid range shots...same thing with Lebron.

A lot more goes into this.

[STATUTORY]

How did Durant do in terms of winning when he had loaded rosters in OKC?

He won automatic titles, right?

His ability to drill shots from all over the court made them unbeatable...right?

No, I think it can be an extremely important part of the game...I'm just not going to say Durant at this best was better than Giannis or something automatically because he can drill mid range shots...same thing with Lebron.

A lot more goes into this.

Durant took his team to the finals and ran into a super team with 3 top 10 players

then he ran into another superteam in the Warriors

in any other era, he would have won his rings organically.

[Bronbron23]

Durant took his team to the finals and ran into a super team with 3 top 10 players

then he ran into another superteam in the Warriors

in any other era, he would have won his rings organically.
Ill give u bron but there was no excuse to losing to the warriors with the team kd had. You cant blame it on youth because warriors were young to. You could maybe blame it on westbrook i guess but a more alpha like individual would of put westbrook in his place and got him to play his role more.

[STATUTORY]

funny that the handful of guys who are great midrange shooters have been racking up rings and fmvps the past few seasons.



makes for a more dynamic and imo interesting game. i miss the days when you'd get a clash of styles between teams. like you'd have a pick n roll heavy team going up against a defensive juggernaut. or a post up heavy, low pace team vs a 7-sec or less uptempo offense.

now every team plays exactly the same. there is no variety. if you watch one nba squad, you've seen them all. heavy on the dribble iso, pick n' roll, chuck 3s and crash the paint for fts. nothing else.

it's why ratings for nba games are tanking. nobody wants to watch glorified light shootaround, 3-pt shooting contests with no defense being played.

This is a great post. The product today simply isn't entertaining

[NBAGOAT]

This is a great post. The product today simply isn't entertaining

The thing is in any sport/game you trend away from diverse strategies because the players and coaches eventually realize some of them are suboptimal or just plain stupid. Like there are only a few openings in chess that are commonly played now at the highest level. the others are only played for a surprise factor.

For example the kings tried they ridiculous cherry picking strategy years ago and realized quickly it was really stupid.

Edit: it does suck for the entertainment factor but not much you can do besides a change to the 3pt line. This isn’t professional wrestling so winning is a priority for nba teams over high ratings

[Round Mound]

Barkley was the master of the inbetween game. He ruled inside the mid range and inbetween the painted area post game.

[ImKobe]

[QUOTE=RRR3]It

[DMAVS41]

Barkley was the master of the inbetween game. He ruled inside the mid range and inbetween the painted area post game.

And, I'd add, he's the example of the other side of things...not that is really mattered...

But Barkley actually took too many 3's given how inept he was at shooting them.

[DoctorP]

cuz there are no fours.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/PassionateBlueHound-size_restricted.gif

[RRR3]

Jordan and Kobe won 11 titles in 13 Finals with their mid-range game :biggums: how many Bron and Curry win again?
Typical low IQ Mamba stan post.

[NBAGOAT]

Jordan and Kobe won 11 titles in 13 Finals with their mid-range game :biggums: how many Bron and Curry win again?

what you said is true but it's not that far off from saying the 90s cowboys won 3 superbowls running the ball over 50% of the time. Just because that strategy worked those years doesnt mean it would work now.

In fact you sometimes see a strategy lose popularity within a couple years. Hibbert was a dpoy candidate in 2014 and by 2016 he was a scrub. It wasnt just because his individual play regressed. The defensive system he excelled in didnt work nearly as well anymore.

[NBASTATMAN]

Mj shot midrange shots could he couldn't shoot from deep.. The only player that I have ever seen have a great midrange game and still also shoot great from three is KAWHI.. He is def special.. He isnt shooting all that well right now though..

Guys like LEBRON, LUKA AND HARDEN are much better passers than MJ and Kobe so while they have the midrange game they don't need to use it as much.

[DMAVS41]

Mj shot midrange shots could he couldn't shoot from deep.. The only player that I have ever seen have a great midrange game and still also shoot great from three is KAWHI.. He is def special.. He isnt shooting all that well right now though..

Guys like LEBRON, LUKA AND HARDEN are much better passers than MJ and Kobe so while they have the midrange game they don't need to use it as much.

You didn't see Dirk play?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Mj shot midrange shots could he couldn't shoot from deep.. The only player that I have ever seen have a great midrange game and still also shoot great from three is KAWHI.. He is def special.. He isnt shooting all that well right now though..

Guys like LEBRON, LUKA AND HARDEN are much better passers than MJ and Kobe so while they have the midrange game they don't need to use it as much.

Wrong.

During the first three-peat, Jordan shot ~39% from 3PT in the playoffs. So Mike in fact was a killer from midrange and pretty good from 3.

And stop putting Harden in the same sentence as MJ. He's not in Jordan's league.

[Bronbron23]

Mj shot midrange shots could he couldn't shoot from deep.. The only player that I have ever seen have a great midrange game and still also shoot great from three is KAWHI.. He is def special.. He isnt shooting all that well right now though..

Guys like LEBRON, LUKA AND HARDEN are much better passers than MJ and Kobe so while they have the midrange game they don't need to use it as much.
Dirk? Kd?

[ImKobe]

what you said is true but it's not that far off from saying the 90s cowboys won 3 superbowls running the ball over 50% of the time. Just because that strategy worked those years doesnt mean it would work now.

In fact you sometimes see a strategy lose popularity within a couple years. Hibbert was a dpoy candidate in 2014 and by 2016 he was a scrub. It wasnt just because his individual play regressed. The defensive system he excelled in didnt work nearly as well anymore.

The strategy does work, it's just that those guys were god-like. Dirk did it in 2011, Kawhi did it just last season. Portland made a WCF run with CJ and Dame killing it from mid-range.

Hibbert was a scrub by 2016 because he got old and played for a bad Lakers team. He was like 7-2 and close to 300 pounds, not many players at that size have a long career and the tanking Lakers didn't run the same system Vogel did in Indiana. 2020 Lakers aren't elite defensively just because of the system, you need the right players for it to work.

The point is that mid-range game is still important in the NBA. Rockets have had the best 3-point shooting teams with good defenses but lost to a Warriors team because the 3s just weren't as reliable as layups or KD's iso game in the mid-range. Their 3s stopped falling and they had no plan B, they just kept shooting to the tune of missing 27 straight and throwing a Game 7 at home.

Warriors have influenced a lot of teams but there's only one Steph and one Klay, just as there was only one MJ.

[DMAVS41]

The strategy does work, it's just that those guys were god-like. Dirk did it in 2011, Kawhi did it just last season. Portland made a WCF run with CJ and Dame killing it from mid-range.

Hibbert was a scrub by 2016 because he got old and played for a bad Lakers team. He was like 7-2 and close to 300 pounds, not many players at that size have a long career and the tanking Lakers didn't run the same system Vogel did in Indiana. 2020 Lakers aren't elite defensively just because of the system, you need the right players for it to work.

The point is that mid-range game is still important in the NBA. Rockets have had the best 3-point shooting teams with good defenses but lost to a Warriors team because the 3s just weren't as reliable as layups or KD's iso game in the mid-range. Their 3s stopped falling and they had no plan B, they just kept shooting to the tune of missing 27 straight and throwing a Game 7 at home.

Warriors have influenced a lot of teams but there's only one Steph and one Klay, just as there was only one MJ.

I agree with a lot of this, but the Warriors were just a better team than the Rockets in terms of the talent and players they had.

Trying to pretend like the Rockets problem was the style they played is pretty silly in my opinion.

Not to mention that Paul still took mid-range shots for them as well.

You make it sound like Curry/Klay/Durant/Green...with the supporting cast around them was somehow not clearly a better team than the Rockets in terms of players. They were...

In fact, it was the Rockets style of bombing 3's that reduced that gap and made them able to more closely compete.

[knicksman]

only the best of the best have the midrange game. Thats why theyre the only ones that wins championships.

[ImKobe]

I agree with a lot of this, but the Warriors were just a better team than the Rockets in terms of the talent and players they had.

Trying to pretend like the Rockets problem was the style they played is pretty silly in my opinion.

Not to mention that Paul still took mid-range shots for them as well.

You make it sound like Curry/Klay/Durant/Green...with the supporting cast around them was somehow not clearly a better team than the Rockets in terms of players. They were...

In fact, it was the Rockets style of bombing 3's that reduced that gap and made them able to more closely compete.

Obviously the Warriors needed 3s to come back and win that series as well but how many championship teams haven't had at least one reliable scorer from mid-range? Didn't the Rockets go up 3 - 2 despite Harden's anemic shooting? Chris Paul goes down in Game 5 and they lose that option from mid-range who also created more offense than just chucking 3s a few seconds into the shot-clock.

I just don't like the 3-point chucking because you can throw a game or a series as much as you can win one, especially with how the Rockets are playing at a ridiculously high pace this season, you give the opposition extra opportunities to come back in a game vs posting up and controlling the flow of the game, which is what the Lakers are doing with AD this season.

[DMAVS41]

Obviously the Warriors needed 3s to come back and win that series as well but how many championship teams haven't had at least one reliable scorer from mid-range? Didn't the Rockets go up 3 - 2 despite Harden's anemic shooting? Chris Paul goes down in Game 5 and they lose that option from mid-range who also created more offense than just chucking 3s a few seconds into the shot-clock.

I'm not disputing that mid-range scoring out of stars has been important.

I'm disputing using a team losing to the Warriors as evidence of anything other than the Warriors simply having better players.

For example, you think the Warriors still win that series if we give the Rockets...current Giannis? Hell no, the Rockets destroy them...because they'd have a better team.

Mid-range is important, but you guys are acting like it is virtually all that matters.

[knicksman]

Curry/Klay are such great shooters that pretty much any shot is good for them as well.

To your point...well, yea, but that can kind of be translated into...better players win more titles....and I also think it is a really narrow view to focus solely on the mid-range when so many other factors...even just on offense...influence titles.

I think it is fair to say that the mid-range is a great weapon for the players that can effectively utilize it...and a huge detriment to players that take them, but don't make them often enough to warrant taking them.

I know you want to prop up lebron as much as possible against kobe but it is what it is. Midrange is not just a great weapon but its the greatest weapon to have. And its also the most difficult. Only the best of the best have it. Its like you have reached the top once you have it. There are players who chose quantity over quality like lebron who wants to be good at everything and there are players who just wants to be the best at most important thing - the midrange game. Thats the reason why theres disagreement between bron stans and kobe stans. We judge players based on the difficulty of the skill while you guys judge based on the quantity of skills.

[NBAGOAT]

The strategy does work, it's just that those guys were god-like. Dirk did it in 2011, Kawhi did it just last season. Portland made a WCF run with CJ and Dame killing it from mid-range.

Hibbert was a scrub by 2016 because he got old and played for a bad Lakers team. He was like 7-2 and close to 300 pounds, not many players at that size have a long career and the tanking Lakers didn't run the same system Vogel did in Indiana. 2020 Lakers aren't elite defensively just because of the system, you need the right players for it to work.

The point is that mid-range game is still important in the NBA. Rockets have had the best 3-point shooting teams with good defenses but lost to a Warriors team because the 3s just weren't as reliable as layups or KD's iso game in the mid-range. Their 3s stopped falling and they had no plan B, they just kept shooting to the tune of missing 27 straight and throwing a Game 7 at home.

Warriors have influenced a lot of teams but there's only one Steph and one Klay, just as there was only one MJ.

well i never directly said being a midrange scorer doesnt work. Just throwing out the point that just because it worked then doesnt necessarily mean it works now.

Dont want to get too much into a debate about Hibbert but he was sharply declining by the 2nd half of 2014 even in vogel's system. The pacers defense regressed a bit from 14 to 15(you can say its because george was injured i wont argue that much)

I agree with most of what DMAVS said about the rockets. You can argue the rockets closed the gap because of their style. Devil's advocate is their defense matched up really well with gs and did a lot of work in 2018 and I wouldnt disagree.

However, at least if you did a roster run down of say the rockets vs last year's raptors, the raptors would come out on top pretty clearly. A lot of people will point to how the 17 cavs had a legitimate 3rd guy in love while the rockets didnt. Yet the rockets are the only ones last few years who looked like they could beat a kd gs team and cle and tor were not exactly teams who were averse to chucking either. Something to keep in mind. Dont want to get too much into comparisons with those teams either however.

Ofc i'll point out like the rockets also were absolutely focused on getting layups and had paul as a backup plan to take midrange shots. His injury in 18 forced them even more to play that way. Finally i'll say yea they could've won game 7 not chucking that much but would they have won game 4 and 5? Shooting 31% from 3 sounds pretty poor but when a lot of teams cant even shoot 40% from midrange, it's not that bad for a playoff game.

Edit: and they may be this year but were not the type of team in 18 and 19 to chuck a 3 within 7 seconds. They purposely played an ugly slow style to neutralize the warriors' fastbreak. It was more like harden/paul dribbling for 10-15 seconds and then taking a contested 3 or driving and kicking.

[DMAVS41]

I know you want to prop up lebron as much as possible against kobe but it is what it is. Midrange is not just a great weapon but its the greatest weapon to have. And its also the most difficult. Only the best of the best have it. Its like you have reached the top once you have it. There are players who chose quantity over quality like lebron who wants to be good at everything and there are players who just wants to be the best at most important thing - the midrange game. Thats the reason why theres disagreement between bron stans and kobe stans. We judge players based on the difficulty of the skill while you guys judge based on the quantity of skills.

I judge players on how good they actually were and the impact they made.

Has nothing to do with Kobe...my favorite player ever shits on him in both the mid-range and shooting in general....so if I really cared about that...I'd just be agreeing with you to prop up Dirk.

You, on the other hand, argue you can't win without it as the best player. Which is just factually incorrect.

Try again...

[ImKobe]

I'm not disputing that mid-range scoring out of stars has been important.

I'm disputing using a team losing to the Warriors as evidence of anything other than the Warriors simply having better players.

For example, you think the Warriors still win that series if we give the Rockets...current Giannis? Hell no, the Rockets destroy them...because they'd have a better team.

Mid-range is important, but you guys are acting like it is virtually all that matters.

You can win both ways, I think you still need a healthy balance to win consistently though. I think the 2015 Warriors might be the only team that actually won without having a reliable mid-range option, and they got lucky with all their opponents dealing with key injuries in the Playoffs.

[FKAri]

It took the NBA about 15 years to realize that a midrange shot is a terrible shot to take.

It should've been dead the moment they took away handchecking.

[DMAVS41]

You can win both ways, I think you still need a healthy balance to win consistently though. I think the 2015 Warriors might be the only team that actually won without having a reliable mid-range option, and they got lucky with all their opponents dealing with key injuries in the Playoffs.

Again, generally it is better to have a balanced team with multiple ways to win.

This could be translated to...it is better to have a better team with better players.

Because that is what usually wins...having the best players.

[NBAGOAT]

Obviously the Warriors needed 3s to come back and win that series as well but how many championship teams haven't had at least one reliable scorer from mid-range? Didn't the Rockets go up 3 - 2 despite Harden's anemic shooting? Chris Paul goes down in Game 5 and they lose that option from mid-range who also created more offense than just chucking 3s a few seconds into the shot-clock.

I just don't like the 3-point chucking because you can throw a game or a series as much as you can win one, especially with how the Rockets are playing at a ridiculously high pace this season, you give the opposition extra opportunities to come back in a game vs posting up and controlling the flow of the game, which is what the Lakers are doing with AD this season.

Responding to this comment so I was the one who brought them up. you got a point about the rockets this year. I wouldnt bet on them vs the clippers or lakers. I would be a little concerned with their higher variance style however because it can win them games they shouldnt. The rockets on paper or the court arent as good as either.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

It took the NBA about 15 years to realize that a midrange shot is a terrible shot to take.

It should've been dead the moment they took away handchecking.

You're saying this after Kawhi showed it still has a place in the game.

Right...

It can be as valuable as MOST shots. Especially in the playoffs. Yes...the playoffs...where defenses are better and lanes are compact.

[knicksman]

I judge players on how good they actually were and the impact they made.

Has nothing to do with Kobe...my favorite player ever shits on him in both the mid-range and shooting in general....so if I really cared about that...I'd just be agreeing with you to prop up Dirk.

You, on the other hand, argue you can't win without it as the best player. Which is just factually incorrect.

Try again...

Well, kobe stans and lebron stans have different criteria as Ive said. You guys judge based on quantity while us quality. If these are courses, you guys prefer a player who has 2 courses( passing and scoring) over a guy who has a masters degree in scoring. While we chose the latter. We just prefer a guy who mastered the art of basketball.

And of course, there are exceptions to the rule like lebron playing for superteams so he won but most often, its the midrange players that wins. From kobe, pierce, kawhi, dirk.

[DMAVS41]

Well, kobe stans and lebron stans have different criteria as Ive said. You guys judge based on quantity while us quality. If these are courses, you guys prefer a player who has 2 courses( passing and scoring) over a guy who has a masters degree in scoring. While we chose the latter. We just prefer a guy who mastered the art of basketball.

And of course, there are exceptions to the rule like lebron playing for superteams so he won but most often, its the midrange players that wins. From kobe, pierce, kawhi, dirk.

That masters degree in scoring and he could never touch the efficiency of other "lesser" players.

Sad.

[NBAGOAT]

You're saying this after Kawhi showed it still has a place in the game.

Right...

It can be as valuable as MOST shots. Especially in the playoffs. Yes...the playoffs...where defenses are better and lanes are compact.

kawhi shot unsustainably well there til his injury https://twitter.com/scoutwithbryan/status/1124366592333139968?lang=en so was likely a sample size thing imo. yea if you can shoot 58% from there, it's great offense. No one in history has come close to that for a whole season.

Even then the midrange was what most playoff defenses were willing to concede to him because it's not as valuable as a kawhi layup or 3.

In a lot of offensive possessions the choice is not taking a contested 3 or a more open midrange but driving and kicking to a relatively open shooter or taking the midrange. Old school mindset says stars should be taking the shots whenever they can but I disagree honestly. I rather a competent role player take an open 3.

[knicksman]

That masters degree in scoring and he could never touch the efficiency of other players.

Sad.

efficiency/quantity. its just stats. The more important thing is quality/effectivenes which cant be measured by stats. And kobe being effective in the playoffs esp in the clutch is more important than any stat lebron has. Thus 5 rings without superteam > 0

[Smoke117]

Most players can't make mid-range jump shots at a high enough rate to warrant taking them. This is just a fact...it has probably always been a fact since the 3 point line was introduced.

That does not mean the mid-range is without value...it simply means that only a select number of players can do consistent damage to the opposition while taking it.

Andrew Wiggins, for example, based on his career ability to shoot mid-range...should stop shooting those shots because he doesn't make them at a high enough rate. He is currently making a far bigger impact offensively by attacking the rim more, taking more 3's, and taking less long 2's...

It is called just being smarter.

Doesn't change the fact that if a player can develop and grow a great mid-range game...they definitely should...

But too many of you guys don't understand just how difficult it is to get good enough at it to warrant taking a high volume of shots there. Just not that many players in history were good enough at those shots to take them often over 3's or attacking the rim.

Wiggins love affair with the long 2 never even made sense. It's not like he was just an okay shooter from there, but completely awful. Doesn't change the fact that 22% of his career shots have come in the the long 2pt shot range (16-3pt line)

[DMAVS41]

efficiency/quantity. its just stats. The more important thing is quality/effectivenes which cant be measured by stats. And kobe being effective in the playoffs esp in the clutch is more important than any stat lebron has. Thus 5 rings without superteam > 0

I'd like to know in what universe playing with prime Shaq for 8 years when he was the best or 2nd best player in the league during that time...with Phil Jackson coaching...isn't a superteam.

Again, this just goes back to...having the best players usually wins.

I completely agree.

But tell me more how Kobe would have been winning titles in Minnesota if he switched places with KG.

:cheers:

[NBAGOAT]

efficiency/quantity. its just stats. The more important thing is quality/effectivenes which cant be measured by stats. And kobe being effective in the playoffs esp in the clutch is more important than any stat lebron has. Thus 5 rings without superteam > 0

you're going have to go beyond rings to prove someone is more "individually effective". and yes you can hate stats all you want but they're still more effective than rings in that regard. you think after 10 years of arguing basketball on here, you have something else besides rings to fall back on

[sd3035]

People have to shoot 33 % on 3s to equal 50% midrange

layups and dunks are obviously the most efficient but it's easier to become a 33% 3 point chucker than a guy who makes 50% of his midrange shots

[DMAVS41]

People have to shoot 33 % on 3s to equal 50% midrange

layups and dunks are obviously the most efficient but it's easier to become a 33% 3 point chucker than a guy who makes 50% of midrange shots

Yes, this math works.

But it is often worse than that for the midrange...because, as has been pointed out, it isn't always either take a 3 or shoot a mid-range shot.

Often the real options are...settle for a contested 3 or long 2...or collapse the defense and find an open teammate at the 3 point line...which is the highest EV shot in basketball outside the obvious dunk/layup that is harder to get most often.

This is what a team like the Mavericks currently does really well. Look at their individual pieces outside of Luka/KP and it really isn't much. Yet they have the best offense in the league, by far, so far.

Yes, that will dry up in the playoffs...but that isn't a flaw in the style...it is a flaw in not having the best players in the league. I'm not sure why people can't grasp that last part.

[knicksman]

I'd like to know in what universe playing with prime Shaq for 8 years when he was the best or 2nd best player in the league...with Phil Jackson coaching...isn't a superteam.

Again, this just goes back to...having the best players usually wins.

I completely agree.

But tell me more how Kobe would have been winning titles in Minnesota if he switched places with KG.

:cheers:

Its the best closer that wins. And the best closers have the best midrange. Kobe/Bird/Jordan.

[DMAVS41]

Its the best closer that wins. And the best closers have the best midrange. Kobe/Bird/Jordan.

Great.

Now please tell me what years Kobe was winning a title on Minnesota in place of KG from 98 through 07.

I'll wait...

:cheers:

[knicksman]

you're going have to go beyond rings to prove someone is more "individually effective". and yes you can hate stats all you want but they're still more effective than rings in that regard. you think after 10 years of arguing basketball on here, you have something else besides rings to fall back on

didnt i just argue about midrange here awhile ago. LOL

[NBAGOAT]

People have to shoot 33 % on 3s to equal 50% midrange

layups and dunks are obviously the most efficient but it's easier to become a 33% 3 point chucker than a guy who makes 50% of his midrange shots

you are oversimplifying tbf. there's value in the playoffs when the defense is taking away the other areas of the court well and your teammates are shooting poorly/you dont have the passing ability to get it to them. Then you have no choice basically.

Giannis last year could've definitely used an in between game vs toronto. However he had no outside game at all which took away an option most other scorers have. I would argue however being a better passer would've been enough to make him effective too(wasnt able to find the right open guys out of double teams consistently).

[DMAVS41]

Wiggins love affair with the long 2 never even made sense. It's not like he was just an okay shooter from there, but completely awful. Doesn't change the fact that 22% of his career shots have come in the the long 2pt shot range (16-3pt line)

Right, but think about what an indictment that is of how slow teams are to adapt to what should actually kind of be obvious.

The Wolves let Wiggins go out there and take the worst shots in basketball for years straight while converting them at a poor rate.

It took until this year to force him to play differently...and what do you know...at least so far...he's playing the best he has overall.

Talk to other people in this thread, and I swear they'd be arguing he should go back to settling for jumpers rather than attacking the rim and shooting more threes.

[knicksman]

Great.

Now please tell me what years Kobe was winning a title on Minnesota in place of KG from 98 through 07.

I'll wait...

:cheers:

Of course luck is also involve but having the best skill reduces that luck. If brady could win 6 in a tougher sport then excuses are just for losers in this sport.

[DMAVS41]

Of course luck is also involve but having the best skill reduces that luck. If brady could win 6 in a tougher sport then excuses are just for losers in this sport.

Ok, I see...

You admit he wouldn't win shit.

:confusedshrug:

[sd3035]

Its the best closer that wins. And the best closers have the best midrange. Kobe/Bird/Jordan.


Bird and Jordan arguments don't work because there weren't many good 3 point shooters back then. Even during Kobe's titles, 3 point shooting was not nearly as prominent as now


The Warriors dominated recent times with 3 point shooting, and Lebald barreled down the lane for layups or kicked it to a teammate for a 3 during his titles

[Smoke117]

Right, but think about what an indictment that is of how slow teams are to adapt to what should actually kind of be obvious.

The Wolves let Wiggins go out there and take the worst shots in basketball for years straight while converting them at a poor rate.

It took until this year to force him to play differently...and what do you know...at least so far...he's playing the best he has overall.

Talk to other people in this thread, and I swear they'd be arguing he should go back to settling for jumpers rather than attacking the rim and shooting more threes.

He's still nothing special. People are overrating him because he was so completely useless and awful the last two seasons. He's mostly just been a volume scorer right now. He's averaging 25ppg on nearly 21 shots. (55%ts) That's as average efficiency as it gets. That might even be below the league average these days. He isn't any kind of high impact player or anything like KAT is. Twolves should be doing anything they can to try and unload him. His stock has risen. Sell high while you can.

[knicksman]

Ok, I see...

You admit he wouldn't win shit.

:confusedshrug:

put garnett in those lakers and hes not winning. he only won coz he finally have a closer in pierce. Seriously, history has already proven that midrange players wins but you guys still argue on this. LOL bron stans

[DMAVS41]

put garnett in those lakers and hes not winning. he only won coz he finally have a closer in pierce. Seriously, history has already proven that midrange players wins but you guys still argue on this. LOL bron stans

I think they definitely win multiple titles, but that isn't my point...as you well know.

[DMAVS41]

He's still nothing special. People are overrating him because he was so completely useless and awful the last two seasons. He's mostly just been a volume scorer right now. He's averaging 25ppg on nearly 21 shots. (55%ts) That's as average efficiency as it gets. That might even be below the league average these days. He isn't any kind of high impact player or anything like KAT is. Twolves should be doing anything they can to try and unload him. His stock has risen. Sell high while you can.

Honestly with Wiggins...as long as he's hustling and trying hard on defense like he has most of this year (at least when I've watched)...he gets a pass from me.

I agree with your overall take, but my bar for him is just so low after the last couple years that anything other than jacking up long 2's and not even moving on defense or off-ball...impresses me.

[knicksman]

Bird and Jordan arguments don't work because there weren't many good 3 point shooters back then. Even during Kobe's titles, 3 point shooting was not nearly as prominent as now


The Warriors dominated recent times with 3 point shooting, and Lebald barreled down the lane for layups or kicked it to a teammate for a 3 during his titles

But still, curry got stopped when the refs decided not to give him calls. Until players could create consistently in the 3 pt area, the midrange game still the best IMO. Kawhi just recently won with it.

[knicksman]

I think they definitely win multiple titles, but that isn't my point...as you well know.

With gasol? LOL. Whatever brah.

[NBAGOAT]

put garnett in those lakers and hes not winning. he only won coz he finally have a closer in pierce. Seriously, history has already proven that midrange players wins but you guys still argue on this. LOL bron stans

and you like many fans tend to overrate history. since dmavs brought up ev again. Guess how relevant "correct" poker strategy from 20 years ago is now. it's not only not relevant but terrible now.

I thought you were a math major? You should have some understanding of game theory and realize strategies usually change over time for any game

[DMAVS41]

With gasol? LOL. Whatever brah.

With Shaq...

But again, that wasn't my point.

You said winning was everything.

I then asked how many titles Kobe would have won from 98 through 07 in Minnesota in place of KG.

And you essentially said "zero"

Not sure the confusion.

[knicksman]

and you like many fans tend to overrate history. since dmavs brought up ev again. Guess how relevant "correct" poker strategy from 20 years ago is now. it's not only not relevant but terrible now.

I thought you were a math major? You should have some understanding of game theory and realize strategies usually change over time for any game

Maybe if kawhi didnt win then I might agree with you guys but kawhi just recently won playing like jordan. Durant is the same. Dirk, kobe.

[NBAGOAT]

Maybe if kawhi didnt win then I might agree with you guys but kawhi just recently won playing like jordan. Durant is the same. Dirk, kobe.

again you're just viewing the game differently. kawhi didnt win by himself lol. There were other reasons the raps won too. I dont want to get into arguing about his team too much. However he was shooting like 58% from midrange the first half of the playoffs. Yea if you can shoot that well it's great but i dont think it's sustainable.

[knicksman]

With Shaq...

But again, that wasn't my point.

You said winning was everything.

I then asked how many titles Kobe would have won from 98 through 07 in Minnesota in place of KG.

And you essentially said "zero"

Not sure the confusion.

But he won with gasol. And I dont think garnett could win with gasol. And I think shaq/garnett wouldnt win the same rings as kobe/shaq. So that just means kobe is better. Kobe might have lesser impact but he has the skillset that matters. Lebron might have higher impact but its useless coz if you pair him with cp3, it makes cp3 useless or reduce lebrons impact while kobe/cp3 is a better duo. Thats why kobe is a better player and the result speaks for itself. Its not about impact but its about whether youre a player worth building around. If you lack that skill that were looking for in a 1st option then youre not a player worth building around no matter how good your stats are. And lebron teamhopping proves it. He needs a player to carry his ass coz he couldnt do it.

[knicksman]

again you're just viewing the game differently. kawhi didnt win by himself lol. There were other reasons the raps won too. I dont want to get into arguing about his team too much. However he was shooting like 58% from midrange the first half of the playoffs. Yea if you can shoot that well it's great but i dont think it's sustainable.

But you have durant, dirk, pierce. Its not just kawhi so I really dont have to explain to you.

[NBAGOAT]

But you have durant, dirk, pierce. Its not just kawhi so I really dont have to explain to you.

fair enough then though pierce is a stretch. i dont want to definitively say it cant work. I'm just not so willing to say it does just based on results from awhile but durant and dirk arent.

[bigkingsfan]

put garnett in those lakers and hes not winning. he only won coz he finally have a closer in pierce. Seriously, history has already proven that midrange players wins but you guys still argue on this. LOL bron stans
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6406917&postcount=177

[knicksman]

fair enough then though pierce is a stretch. i dont want to definitively say it cant work. I'm just not so willing to say it does just based on results from awhile but durant and dirk arent.

the general rule is "difficult path often leads to beautiful destinations." So the harder the skill, the more important it is. And creating your own shot is the most difficult skill in basketball. And until players could create their own shot at the 3pt line consistently, creating at the midrange area is still the king.

[LAmbruh]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6406917&postcount=177
:roll:

[FKAri]

You're saying this after Kawhi showed it still has a place in the game.

Right...

It can be as valuable as MOST shots. Especially in the playoffs. Yes...the playoffs...where defenses are better and lanes are compact.
Defenses being better is a part of it. A bigger part is that referees forget which sport their calling. Wish they were consistent with how they call it all year long. But anyways, what Kawhi showed was that if you force him to take a bad shot, he can still make it at a rate that can sustain an offense.

An offensive player capable of that is a game breaker for a defense and is a superstar player. It can be a midrange, 3, a hook shot, a half court shot standing on your head, whatever. If the defense forces you into it and you can STILL do it at a level that sustains an offense. You are a superstar.

[Bronbron23]

Maybe if kawhi didnt win then I might agree with you guys but kawhi just recently won playing like jordan. Durant is the same. Dirk, kobe.
Yeah this is insane. The warriors win one asterisk title in15 with the 3 ball and everyone thinks the game has changed. The other 2 they only won because they durant who just made it unfair and who btw is one of the best midrange players in the game. Last year kawhi won and hes also one of the best mid range playera in the game. Pretty much every chip thats been won in the last 30 years had an elite midrange player.

91-93 mj
96-98 mj
99 duncan
00-02 kobe
03, 05 duncan
06 wade
07 duncan
08 pierce, kg
09-10 kobe
11 dirk
12-13 wade
14 kawhi
17-18 kd
19 kawhi

So since 91 theres only been 4 teams and 5 chips that won without an elite midrange player. The 94,95 rockets. The 04 pistons, the 15 warriors and the 16 cavs. And the 04 pistons had rip who was actually a great mid range player at the time so im not sure if they even count. And the 16 cavs had kyrie who is also an elite midrange player so they probably dont count So really in the last 30 years theres only been 2 teams that won without an elite midrange player.

[DMAVS41]

Yeah this is insane. The warriors win one asterisk title in15 with the 3 ball and everyone thinks the game has changed. The other 2 they only won because they durant who just made it unfair and who btw is one of the best midrange players in the game. Last year kawhi won and hes also one of the best mid range playera in the game. Pretty much every chip thats been won in the last 30 years had an elite midrange player.

91-93 mj
96-98 mj
99 duncan
00-02 kobe
03, 05 duncan
06 wade
07 duncan
08 pierce, kg
09-10 kobe
11 dirk
12-13 wade
14 kawhi
17-18 kd
19 kawhi

So since 91 theres only been 4 teams and 5 chips that won without an elite midrange player. The 94,95 rockets. The 04 pistons, the 15 warriors and the 16 cavs. And the 04 pistons had rip who was actually a great mid range player at the time so im not sure if they even count. And the 16 cavs had kyrie who is also an elite midrange player so they probably dont count So really in the last 30 years theres only been 2 teams that won without an elite midrange player.

This, again, is just saying the teams with the best players usually win.

You have explaining to do about the Kings never winning with the likes of Bibby/Webber/Peja. How about Dirk only winning once...how did that happen when he's arguably the best mid-range shooter ever...and only got better in the plyaoffs. And, he had Terry...he could also drill mid-range shots quite well.

Listing the Pistons...like they won off of offense is absurd, but why list them and not the Rockets then? Paul is one of the best mid-range jump shooters ever. I think the Pistons had a below-average offense iirc. Like, at some point you can't be taken seriously...

Durant couldn't win on a non historically stacked team. He's one of the best shooters ever from all over the court.

We sure it is proper to count Wade as an elite mid-range shooter in 12/13 like you claimed? I'd imagine the actual data doesn't support this. My guess is that he was in 06, but absolutely was not the other years.

Again, and I can't believe this is controversial...shooting, in general, is really important. Being able to operate in the post extended or pull up from mid-range is a beneficial skill. Just like being able to rebound, protect the paint, have multiple guys that can score on their own...etc.

This notion that being able to shoot great from mid-range is the cause of titles is simply not true. Completely confusing causation with correlation.

[Bronbron23]

This, again, is just saying the teams with the best players usually win.

You have explaining to do about the Kings never winning with the likes of Bibby/Webber/Peja. How about Dirk only winning once...how did that happen when he's arguably the best mid-range shooter ever...and only got better in the plyaoffs. And, he had Terry...he could also drill mid-range shots quite well.

Listing the Pistons...like they won off of offense is absurd, but why list them and not the Rockets then? Paul is one of the best mid-range jump shooters ever. I think the Pistons had a below-average offense iirc. Like, at some point you can't be taken seriously...

Durant couldn't win on a non historically stacked team. He's one of the best shooters ever from all over the court.

We sure it is proper to count Wade as an elite mid-range shooter in 12/13 like you claimed? I'd imagine the actual data doesn't support this. My guess is that he was in 06, but absolutely was not the other years.

Again, and I can't believe this is controversial...shooting, in general, is really important. Being able to operate in the post extended or pull up from mid-range is a beneficial skill. Just like being able to rebound, protect the paint, have multiple guys that can score on their own...etc.

This notion that being able to shoot great from mid-range is the cause of titles is simply not true. Completely confusing causation with correlation.
Yes the teams with the best players often win but your just ignoring the fact that one of the main reasons theyre the best players is because of there elite midrange. And Im not saying its the only factor but its certainly a huge one and i never said dirk was the goat mid range. Mj was a much better midrange than dirk mainly because of his athleticism to go along with his midrange skills.

And i actually listing the pistons as one of the teams that won without the midrange primarily because of there defence being the biggest reason why they won. I thought about rip after the fact and through them in just because it was convenient to my argument.

And yeah chris paul and bibby have good mid range but they just lost other teams that had even better midrange players. Bigger too. Size is another factor in this equation. Small ball is another myth. Almost all of the chips in the last 30 years have been won by bigger players that are 6'6 and above. Wade in 06 and steph in 15 are the exceptions to this.

The small ball three jacking style of play has barely won anything and thats not gonna change anytime soon. The clippers who also have 2 elite midrange stars are gonna win this year and maybe next. How many more chips have to be won by elite midrange players before you except the truth?

[NBAGOAT]

Yes the teams with the best players often win but your just ignoring the fact that one of the main reasons theyre the best players is because of there elite midrange. And Im not saying its the only factor but its certainly a huge one and i never said dirk was the goat mid range. Mj was a much better midrange than dirk mainly because of his athleticism to go along with his midrange skills.

And i actually listing the pistons as one of the teams that won without the midrange primarily because of there defence being the biggest reason why they won. I thought about rip after the fact and through them just because.

And yeah chris paul and bibby have good mid range but they just lost other teams that had even better midrange players. Bigger too. Size is another factor in this equation. Small ball is another myth. Almost all of the chips in the last 30 years have been won by bigger players that are 6'6 and above. Wade in 06 and steph in 15 are the exceptions to this.

The small ball three jacking style of play has barely won anything and thats not gonna change anytime soon. The clippers who also have 2 elite midrange stars are gonna win this year and maybe next. How many more chips have to be won by elite midrange players before you admit except the truth?

we'll see and i disagree lou is elite from midrange who I think is the 2nd guy you're referring to. I would argue the clips should win because they likely have the most star power(a legit big 4 with kawhi, george, lou, harrell) and are also one of the deepest teams in the league.

However what if the rockets somehow beat the clips with hot shooting from harden. wat if mil's role players shoot super well. Would you admit you could be wrong? I personally think it's stupid to overreact to one series even if it supports my point because a team can just get hot either from 3 or midrange or even on postups but you seem to be pretty results oriented. It just doesnt mean that's what would happen on average

[Smoke117]

Yes the teams with the best players often win but your just ignoring the fact that one of the main reasons theyre the best players is because of there elite midrange. And Im not saying its the only factor but its certainly a huge one and i never said dirk was the goat mid range. Mj was a much better midrange than dirk mainly because of his athleticism to go along with his midrange skills.

And i actually listing the pistons as one of the teams that won without the midrange primarily because of there defence being the biggest reason why they won. I thought about rip after the fact and through them in just because it was convenient to my argument.

And yeah chris paul and bibby have good mid range but they just lost other teams that had even better midrange players. Bigger too. Size is another factor in this equation. Small ball is another myth. Almost all of the chips in the last 30 years have been won by bigger players that are 6'6 and above. Wade in 06 and steph in 15 are the exceptions to this.

The small ball three jacking style of play has barely won anything and thats not gonna change anytime soon. The clippers who also have 2 elite midrange stars are gonna win this year and maybe next. How many more chips have to be won by elite midrange players before you except the truth?

lol What teams are these that had better mid range shooters than Chris Paul? He's one of the greatest ever in that regard. He's a career 48% shooter in the 10-16 range.

[scuzzy]

Midrange shot is a archaic skillset in this day and age, only used by players who are terrified of contact and going to the rim, or unconfident with their 3 point shot and range

10 years from now fans will laugh back at it similar to the granny shot used by players in Wilts glory days

[Smoke117]

Midrange shot is a archaic skillset in this day and age, only used by players who are terrified of contact and going to the rim, or unconfident with their 3 point shot and range

10 years from now fans will laugh back at it similar to the granny shot used by players in Wilts glory days

:facepalm Go to bed, Simon.

[Bronbron23]

lol What teams are these that had better mid range shooters than Chris Paul? He's one of the greatest ever in that regard. He's a career 48% shooter in the 10-16 range.
When i said better midrange players i mean players that were also elite midrange players that were just better players. Pierce, kobe,duncan,kg and dirk had comparable midrange games to cp but because of there size and a few other factors they were just better.

[Smoke117]

When i said better midrange players i mean players that were also elite midrange players that were just better players. Pierce, kobe,duncan,kg and dirk had comparable midrange games to cp but because of there size and a few other factors they were just better.


lmfao...Pierce better than Chris Paul? Jesus christ. :oldlol: Stop watching basketball if you actually believe that.

[Bronbron23]

we'll see and i disagree lou is elite from midrange who I think is the 2nd guy you're referring to. I would argue the clips should win because they likely have the most star power(a legit big 4 with kawhi, george, lou, harrell) and are also one of the deepest teams in the league.

However what if the rockets somehow beat the clips with hot shooting from harden. wat if mil's role players shoot super well. Would you admit you could be wrong? I personally think it's stupid to overreact to one series even if it supports my point because a team can just get hot either from 3 or midrange or even on postups but you seem to be pretty results oriented. It just doesnt mean that's what would happen on average
Well youd be using one chip compared to the 20 something that i mentioned but if it happened more often i would admit im wrong yeah. I dont see it happening though. Playoffs will come and defences will get tighter and more physical. The refs wont call as much either and teams wont get open as much to hit all the threes there hitting now. When the game turns into a tight half court game the midrange will become alot more important and the clippers have the much better midrange players.

We'll see though i could be wrong. It wont be the first or last time.

[Bronbron23]

lmfao...Pierce better than Chris Paul? Jesus christ. :oldlol: Stop watching basketball if you actually believe that.
Well ill admit out of those 5 names pierce is the more controversial one but its way closer than your acting like it is. Chris paul is one of the og's of ball dominant point gaurds. This style of play is great for stats but not for winning. Hes also a questionable teammate. Most of his former teammates hate him. So if your just a mindless stat watcher than yeah cp looks better. Id take paul pierce over him for a teammate in a tough finals series though so i guess it depends on what you value.

[Smoke117]

Well ill admit out of those 5 names pierce is the more controversial one but its way closer than your acting like it is. Chris paul is one of the og's of ball dominant point gaurds. This style of play is great for stats but not for winning. Hes also a questionable teammate. Most of his former teammates hate him. So if your just a mindless stat watcher than yeah cp looks better. Id take paul pierce over him for a teammate in a tough finals series though so i guess it depends on what you value.

You pretty much have no idea what you are talking about. Trying to look smart while having no clue about what you're saying. Pierce never had half the impact Paul did. You could replace Pierce with Paul and he would have actually gotten those 06 07 Celtic teams into the playoffs. There is no argument for Pierce over Paul, period. Chris Paul is a top 25 player of all time while Pierce is borderline top 50.

[Bronbron23]

You pretty much have no idea what you are talking about. Trying to look smart while having no clue about what you're saying. Pierce never had half the impact Paul did. You could replace Pierce with Paul and he would have actually gotten those 06 07 Celtic teams into the playoffs. There is no argument for Pierce over Paul, period. Chris Paul is a top 25 player of all time while Pierce is borderline top 50.
No i know what im talking about and pretty much everything i said was true.
Bad teammate-check
Ball dominant point gaurd-check

I dont argue that cp will go down as the better player. And yeah he probably would have got the celtics to the playoffs when pierce couldn't. I would personally rather have pierce in the finals for the reasons i gave though. Its kind of like kawhi. There are plenty of players that are better equipped at getting a team to the playoffs but none of them are better than kawhi come finals time. If you replace pierce for cp3 celtics dont win the chip. That celtic team had great team chemistry. They wouldn't have had that if chris paul was leading the team. This is a aspect of basketball that isnt measured by stats so i dont expect a chris paul fan to understand.

Your obviously just one of the few fans that dont see chris paul for what he really is. I didnt think there were many of you left to tbh.

[knicksman]

Its not really midrange but creating your own shot. Most of these 3s are just open shots or in rhythm. They are not created. Let them create at the 3pt line and their percentages plummet that taking the midrange is more effective. If its an open shot midrange vs 3 then i might take 3. But creating your own shot at the 3pt line vs midrange. Id take the midrange.

[DMAVS41]

Yes the teams with the best players often win but your just ignoring the fact that one of the main reasons theyre the best players is because of there elite midrange. And Im not saying its the only factor but its certainly a huge one and i never said dirk was the goat mid range. Mj was a much better midrange than dirk mainly because of his athleticism to go along with his midrange skills.

And i actually listing the pistons as one of the teams that won without the midrange primarily because of there defence being the biggest reason why they won. I thought about rip after the fact and through them in just because it was convenient to my argument.

And yeah chris paul and bibby have good mid range but they just lost other teams that had even better midrange players. Bigger too. Size is another factor in this equation. Small ball is another myth. Almost all of the chips in the last 30 years have been won by bigger players that are 6'6 and above. Wade in 06 and steph in 15 are the exceptions to this.

The small ball three jacking style of play has barely won anything and thats not gonna change anytime soon. The clippers who also have 2 elite midrange stars are gonna win this year and maybe next. How many more chips have to be won by elite midrange players before you except the truth?

Again, I've already agreed with a lot of what the pro-mid-range side is arguing...as usual, people like you take it too far though.

Talking about 12/13 Wade as an elite mid-range shooter to explain why the Heat won. Which he factually wasn't...he shot poorly from 10 ft to the 3pt line those years....when the obvious reason they won titles is that they had the best players/team...which is almost always true.

So when you start listing all the guys that won...you are just listing most of the best players ever, at least in the modern era, on years they had really good help....while also ignoring all of the other reasons they won...yes, in addition to being able to score in a multitude of ways that includes jump-shooting.

Again, why did the Kings lose? I'm assuming that having all those guys that could shoot really mattered...right? You know what is funny...is that if Bibby/Webber shot more 3's...I'd bet my life that they would have won the title in 02. Instead, they both took a bunch of long 2's...if they had taken, for example, 12 threes per game between them, rather than only 4...again...they'd probably have a chip.

To argue that they lost for some other reason other than maybe just not being as good as Shaq/Kobe...it is just hard to take seriously.

Again, the best players with really good help usually wins. In order to buck that trend...it usually takes something like what the Rockets did in 18 to bring more randomness that can't really be accounted for into the games in a series.

Dirk/KD/CP3...they are without a doubt some of the best players at exactly what you are talking about. If KD didn't join the Warriors...they'd likely still have exactly 1 title between them all. This is not a good look for your theory.

[brooks_thompson]

Interesting that the graphic shows the very edge of corner threes going cold in the last two years. Seems like everybody must've stopped being idiots and stopped stepping out of bounds while on the sideline.

[yeaaaman]

Its not really midrange but creating your own shot. Most of these 3s are just open shots or in rhythm. They are not created. Let them create at the 3pt line and their percentages plummet that taking the midrange is more effective. If its an open shot midrange vs 3 then i might take 3. But creating your own shot at the 3pt line vs midrange. Id take the midrange.

I think it's basically this. At the highest level you need to be able to create your own shot regardless of whether it's a 2 or 3. Shooting a bunch of 3's because it worked in the regular season doesn't necessarily translate to the closeout game of a series or the NBA finals.

The warriors revolutionized the 3pt shot but a lot of teams, players and fans fail to realize their team doesn't have Steph Curry or Klay Thompson. We're talking about two of the greatest shooters ever. I don't think it's a coincidence that Lebron cemented himself when he started hitting the mid-range with more consistency, that Dirk, Kawhi, Wade, KD, Kobe all those guys could hit the mid-range with proficiency especially when it mattered most. The game has changed I agree but I don't think that means the mid-range is not a useful shot. Not being able to shoot it is actually a detriment