RealGM

According to this study over a 5-year period of every shot taken in the league:



According to that graph, a corner 3 is as good a shot as a layup, and 10-15 feet on the wings is less efficient than 16-23 foot jumpers.

Trying to figure out why that might be. My one thought is that perhaps bigs with limited range are more likely to stretch themselves shooting a short midrange J, whereas most everyone shooting outside of 16 feet will either be a guard or a big who has legit range.

Hmmm. Efficiency aside, wouldn't a 10-15ft shot still be a better shot to take than a 16-23 footer? I'd figure you'd get more opportunities for offensive rebounds on closer jumpshots than the longer ones

According to hoopdata, the average % from each area in 2010-2011

At rim: 64.1%
3-9 ft: 39.0%
10-15ft: 39.3%
16-23ft: 39.4%
3pt: .538 (.eFG)

So all forms of inside the paint shooting is almost equally low in %. Interestingly, 3-9 ft and 10-15 ft combine for 1.5 average shots attempted a game for all players, while 16-23 ft alone is 1.7. (at rim is 2.0, 3 is 1.5)

My best guess for the difference is that there a lot of set shots from 16-23 feet, pick and pop plays, and generally players being open because teams want them to take long 2s - shots practiced and planned and executed as expected. Whereas jumpers within 10 feet are not as planned - the player wants to drive to the basket and then the help rotates faster than him, leading the player who's already come too far and out of control to pass, to "pull a Tyreke Evans" and throw up something wild in the hope it goes in or they get fouled. I think there's a lot of players better at hitting a set 20 foot jumpshot than a floater off the dribble from 8 feet

Also maybe it's as simple as saying the closer you get to the basket, the more congested the area will be and the more likely you have multiple defenders having their arms in your face as you go up to shoot

Those blue areas on the baseline look like the places where players take turnaround/fadeaways out of post ups. While a few players can make those shots work for them, they're usually the bail-out move when a guy in a post-up can't get a good shot off. Basically unless you're Dirk, that's the shot the defense wants you to take.

The spots further out are more likely to be catch and shoot plays, or at least perimeter-based players taking pull-up jumpers.

I hate when people use rainbow color scales. Just give me blue to red.

IMO Its because of the HS and college 3 pt line. Regardless of the fact that the line backs up in the NBA, that long-range becomes a comfort zone, practiced more often than the low/midrange shot ever is. At least for good shooters, people who are prone to shoot more jumpers.

There are some other good reasons here too, mainly that its not a place where jumpshooters usually wind up, and that its more likely a SF/PF/C taking that jumper over a PG/SG.

So I guess the more nuanced take is that a guard/sf taking an open 21 footer is actually a better shot than anyone (but especially bigs) taking a contested 10-15 jumper. Kinda interesting, usually you're happy to get the ball into the post over a long-2, but if that post possessions ends with a jumper, probably not preferable to "the most inefficient shot in basketball." Of course, that's going to vary based on personnel involved, but interesting nonetheless.

Ha, yeah that makes sense. The least efficient shot is probably going to be the contested version of whatever location you're least practiced at.

The long 2 though clearly deserves special ire because it typically means you're taking a shot no easier than a 3 for 67% of the credit. If you were to take the efficiency there not out of the literal points you were shooting for, but what you could have had if you had the 3, it obviously falls more.

Shot construction (catch-n-shoot, pull-up, uncontested after screen, shot from triple-threat position) would be a nice wrinkle to add to this, as well as shot-clock phase. The chart tells us what shots were made where, but not why and in what circumstance they were taken.

mopper8 wrote:So I guess the more nuanced take is that a guard/sf taking an open 21 footer is actually a better shot than anyone (but especially bigs) taking a contested 10-15 jumper. Kinda interesting, usually you're happy to get the ball into the post over a long-2, but if that post possessions ends with a jumper, probably not preferable to "the most inefficient shot in basketball." Of course, that's going to vary based on personnel involved, but interesting nonetheless.

I wouldnt even say contested 10-15 jumper, because I'd imagine that quality shooting guards and wings are having their jumpers contested just as often.

1) less contested > more contested
2) closer > farther
3) worth more > worth less

long 2 vs. mid-range 2

long 2:
1) less contested > more contested
2) closer > farther
3) worth more > worth less

mid-range 2:
1) less contested > more contested
2) closer > farther
3) worth more > worth less

In this case, #1 outweighs #2. Nice thread, BTW.

As someone who was a pure shooter when I played, I disagree that closer > farther. I'd imagine there's a lot of players who'd agree with me on that... even today, if you gave me 100 20ft shots vs 100 15ft shots, I'd probably sink more of the former. IMO the most important aspect of this is the comfort zone, and most players while developing are shooting long shots and 3s over 10 footers.

Probably because the longer shots are much more available, which I guess can be filed under 'contested'..

FireNellieQuick wrote:As someone who was a pure shooter when I played, I disagree that closer > farther. I'd imagine there's a lot of players who'd agree with me on that... even today, if you gave me 100 20ft shots vs 100 15ft shots, I'd probably sink more of the former.

Probably some truth to that...but not enough. If you took 100 players and had them shoot 100 set shots each at 5 ft, 10 ft, 15 ft, and 20 ft, I'm 100% sure that it would be 100% clear. I mean, it's simple physics.

ps--You should totally stand five feet back from the line on your free throws.

Yeah like you said better shooters are shooting the farther shots and they are taking less contested shots. Those dead zones seem like places where people take those contested fade aways and bigs shoot those little faceups

Did they have those charts split for individual players?

GreenHat wrote:
Did they have those charts split for individual players?

Here is a link to the paper it has charts for Nash,Kobe,Dirk and Ray Allen towards the end.

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Goldsberry_Sloan_Submission.pdf

SideshowBob wrote:Hmmm. Efficiency aside, wouldn't a 10-15ft shot still be a better shot to take than a 16-23 footer? I'd figure you'd get more opportunities for offensive rebounds on closer jumpshots than the longer ones

Another paper at the Sloan conference addressed this.

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/108-sloan-sports-2012-maheswaran-chang_updated.pdf

They used 2 ft intervals for shot location i.e 0-2 so you can't match it directly with normal shot location stats.

6-10 ft ORB% 0.277
10-16 ft ORB% 0.224
16-22 ft ORB% 0.214

Los Soles wrote:

FireNellieQuick wrote:As someone who was a pure shooter when I played, I disagree that closer > farther. I'd imagine there's a lot of players who'd agree with me on that... even today, if you gave me 100 20ft shots vs 100 15ft shots, I'd probably sink more of the former.

Probably some truth to that...but not enough. If you took 100 players and had them shoot 100 set shots each at 5 ft, 10 ft, 15 ft, and 20 ft, I'm 100% sure that it would be 100% clear. I mean, it's simple physics.

ps--You should totally stand five feet back from the line on your free throws.

FTs, actually, are a great example.

FTs are 15 ft away... say you give players 100 FTs and 100 10 ft shots. I think as many, if not more, will make more FTs. In this case, repetition > physics. And I think it can be a part of the explanation of why the graph is the way it is.

Good shooters are encouraged to shoot from farther away, because its more points and its less likely to be challenged. Shooting at those spots repetitively, especially for professional athletes, can make those looks easier than shots that by all logical purposes should be easier.

No statistical base to it of course, but I think its more impactful than you're giving it credit for

I think its way harder to get clean looks from the 10-15 foot range. Usually if you do have that shot open your a big and the defense is daring you to take that shot. Like with the bulls they dare Noah to shoot that tornado of his. They dont even rotate over and even more suprisingly he has been hitting a bunch. If Luol Deng or Kyle Korver had the ball at that distance the defense would be selling out to get there. And since its not too far away its hard to regularly get clean looks for them at that range.