Should be? Do you mean focus on improving or focus on taking?
And I agree mid range is the least beneficial in isolation. It is only helpful if it increases the percentage made of the other 2 types of shots.
UMBC Retrievers
- Thread starter MrTbone
- Start date
And I agree mid range is the least beneficial in isolation. It is only helpful if it increases the percentage made of the other 2 types of shots.
That sounds like my first thought. Why take mid range if all percentages are going to stay the same no matter what?
However if you can focus on increasing the percentage of made mid range it could be worth it. Or if making mid range shots increases the percentage made of the other 2 shots it could be worth it.
I suspect that generally across the board, you get more offensive rebounds on missed mid-range shots than missed three-pointers. If that is true, then there's a reason to shoot more mid-range shots. If it's not true, then I've got nothing.
Unless that is your game and what you are good at. Some guys have good mid range games and that is a huge advantage for them. So yeah it easy to say either shoot a 3 or get to the rim, except if that is not what you do best.
Plus defenses are so predicated now on stopping the 3, that having guys with a good mid range jumper is really important weapon to have in your arsenal. Terry Allen was pretty lethal with his mid range game last year.
TA led our team last year in mid-range jumper accuracy with a FG% of ..... 36.7%. Not what I would call lethal.
Any time you take an option away from the offense it makes it easier to defend. You have to keep the defense honest and guessing. Unfortunately, that is what the game is evolving into. It could be the analytics driving it that way. Now the defense doesn't have to worry about the whole floor. They can design defenses to only worry about shots in a eight foot circle around the rim and a three foot strip from the 3 line out. Once a player puts the ball on the floor the defense knows he/she is going to the rack. They also know where the passing options will be going. The no charge circle is gradually getting bigger also. The offenses are going to the rack with reckless abandon looking for that spot up shooter or to get fouled. On the flip side, the coaches and players don't have to learn as much on each side of the ball. That's why you are seeing the small 3 and 4 guard lineups. No need for the players that can drive their man back with one or 2 dribbles and shoot over them. More about speed and athleticism, which means recruiting is even more important. Ironically, Mooney's best teams have been with players that could, and more importantly did hit the midrange jumper.
Last edited:
yes, it's great if a guy on your team can knock down midrange shots. but he has to hit that at over 50% to be worth taking those shots over 3 pointers. TA didn't. I assume not many do.
so offenses are designed now like the dribble drive to spread the defense and either get to the hole or kick to a 3 point shooter. if the 3 point line was a little further out making it a tougher shot, maybe the midrange game would be more valuable. right now, the 3 pointer is a pretty easy shot. and defending it is tough.
so offenses are designed now like the dribble drive to spread the defense and either get to the hole or kick to a 3 point shooter. if the 3 point line was a little further out making it a tougher shot, maybe the midrange game would be more valuable. right now, the 3 pointer is a pretty easy shot. and defending it is tough.
St. Mary's this year has taken less than 10% of their shots from mid-range. Over 90% of their shots have either been 3s or at the rim, yet they have one of the best offenses in the country. Has forgoing the mid-range shot hurt them more than it has helped them? They have been taking an incredibly low number of mid-range shots for years, and yet their offense is consistently very efficient.
Four teams which consistently take very few mid-range shots are St. Mary's, Davidson, Belmont and Iona. These teams all are known for having very efficient offenses (defense on the other hand is not always a strong suit for these teams), minimizing the number of mid-range shots they take has not had a net negative effect on their offenses. They have been taking very few mid-range jumpers year after year, yet they always have very efficient offenses.
In general, the size of any negative effect of reducing the number of mid-range shots (like your hypothesis of defensive adjustments) is tiny in comparison to the increase in efficiency when the mid range shot is deemphasized. Now, no coach is going to completely disallow mid range jumpers, sometimes that is the best shot a team can find in a given possession and it should be taken. However, I don't think coaches should draw up plays where the goal is to get a good mid range jumper. That should always be the last option.
Last edited:
This is why I thought "Most players should be focusing on mid-range shots" was odd for you to say...
2011, I see what you're saying, but my question would be, do any of those 4 schools run the patented CM Princeton variation offense?
Another followup to the mid range argument. I only have the data for the past 5 years, so I unfortunately will have to do some digging before I can look at the NCAA teams, but here are the shooting percentages for our top scorers over the past 5 years:
As you can see we have our two best mid range shooter on the team right now, it has not helped to open our offense up at all this year.
Code:
Player Rim Mid Range 3FG
TJ 77.1% 47.4% 36.3%
SDJ 58.1% 40.9% 38.7%
Brothers 50.4% 39.0% 40.4%
TA 69.7% 38.2% 29.9%
Ced 57.4% 37.8% 33.1%
K0 57.7% 36.0% 39.2%
DWill 69.6% 28.9% 34.3%As you can see we have our two best mid range shooter on the team right now, it has not helped to open our offense up at all this year.
Unless it is an end of game situation you take the shot with the highest expected value. Running out the clock allows the defense to be set and will greatly reduce the value of the possession, if you have a clear path for an uncontested dunk or layup take it. The only reason you take a 3 in that situation is if you can make it with >66% accuracy (not many people can) or your layup will be contested but the wide open 3 will not be contested.
I can't speak to the exact offenses these teams run, but they all do have similarities that can be seen year after year that give some insight into their playing style. They all have extremely high effective field goal percentages due to the minimization of the mid range jumper, they all have extremely high assist rates, and they all have very low free throw rates. Out of the four teams, three of them also have very low offensive rebounding rates, and 3 of 4 have very low turnover rates. These are all characteristics of Princeton style offenses where ball movement and smart play (high assist rates and eFG%, few turnovers) are emphasized over physical play (offensive rebounding and free throw rate).
Last edited:
fan2011, as usual, you always only show the positive side of a stat. For people to get a clear view you always need to post the negative side of the stat as well. For instance, if you are going to post the examples of St. Marys, Davidson, Belmont and Iona then you need to post the bottom 4 teams in the stat also.That way readers can make up their own minds. Same for the the stat about the current teams mid range shooters. That stat is useless. That is not a green light shot in UR offense. It is discouraged from being taken except at the end of the shot clock and is then a contested one. Yet it is available earlier in the shot clock as an open shot particularly against the zones being played today. I will agree with you about taking the shot with the highest perceived value. I think the disagreement comes from what a person thinks that type shot is. Open 3 or open 2? Contested 3 over open 2? Or in the case of KF, a 1 against 3 or 4 solo break. Whatever a person thinks that shot is, it's got to be one that the offensive player can make. Whatever will give the player the highest percentage of scoring on that particular possession.
where did you hear or read that an open shot is not a green light shot in our offense?
Over the past 5 years four bottom teams are UNC, Portland, Hawaii and Bradley. It seems that if you have the players UNC has, the strategy can be successful. If you don't, it seems you are not going to have very much success on offense.
UNC is a very interesting team in that they take threes at ~1/2 the rate of the average team and have a good but not great eFG%, and rely on offensive rebounding to keep their efficiency up.
2011, you have me thinking differently than I did about the mid-range. I still believe it a has strong value in keeping D's honest. IF a player always shoots a 3 or drives to the basket, you know how to play him, but if he occasionally pulls up for the tear drop (ala KA) the D has to play him differently. I would like to see SDJ pull up more often, especially at the end of the games, I believe he would be more efficient at all shots.
Can you revise your chart to add FT's for our players?
Can you revise your chart to add FT's for our players?
I generally agree with 2011, and get irritated when players take a jump shot with time on the clock from just inside the arc. But my counterpoint to myself is the eyeball test--Khwan Fore seems to be really consistently good at jump shots off the dribble from 18-20 feet away, and really bad at them from 22 feet away. Stats might tell you to have Khwan pull up from beyond the line, but the visual evidence is that when he does, he misses. So ultimately I agree with the sentiment that you shouldn't design offenses to get mid-range 2 point jumpers, but you should be flexible enough to encourage exceptions like Khwan Fore's pull up jumper and Justin Harper's elbow fadeaway.
Yet they all have about the same record as the Spiders with the exception of UNC. If I looked up the right Portland, they are scoring about 80 points a game. What does this mean? Not much except that you can glean most anything you want from the stat sheet after a game. The only stat that really matters is who won the game. More importantly, there comes a point in the game where you just have to find a way to get the win. That is where Mooney's teams tend to fall short.
He should unless there is a good chance he can get a teammate or himself a clear layup opportunity
quite frankly, don't care about %s or analytics, just want to win. if we are spending too much time on playing our game to numbers instead of some basic things, we need to change it up.
Just seems that we pass up an open 3 at the beginning of a possession and then work 25 seconds to get the same shot. Just wondered.
Similar threads
