Around the Offseason, Take 2

[Adelheid]

If the defense takes away the 3pt area and the inside, where are you going to score from then?
Of course, it need not be said that you take what the defense gives you unless you like taking contested 3s and not making them drop.

[DOT]

I mean, analytics this and analytics that, but isn't a "good shot" one that a player is good at making?

I mean, if a guy is taking long 2's that are almost 3's, I get that being a little dumb, but a mid range shot? Why not? IF they player is adept.

It's still the least efficient shot in basketball.

The value of the midrange shot increases in the playoffs though, as teams face elite defenses that take away your most efficient shots and force you to adjust your shot chart. I thought the MIL-TOR match-up in the ECF was a prime example of that. One team was able to adjust and survive by hitting midrange shots at an efficient clip (Kawhi helps), the other was completely lost without its bread-and-butter.

That's my point, in part. If a player is good at it, there's nothing wrong with it. I remember Greg Anthony. I mean, not a great offensive player, but he was a decent 3 point shooter. I forget about mid range. I do remember he SUCKED at making layups. That's a case of a "great shot" not being so great.

I believe I made this case earlier, but the fact is, you just have to be insanely good at mids for them to be a better shot than a 3 or a layup. Like, let's look at CP3, one of the best mid range shooters of all time. Career 48% mid shooter, but shoots 61% for his career at the rim. Even as good as he is from mid, there should never ever be a situation where he turns down a layup for a mid, because it's just simple math. Then, he's a 37% 3pt shooter, which is, efficiency wise, the same as shooting about 54% from 2. So, again, he should look for 3s over mids, cause over the course of a game, over the course of a season, he'll score more points.

The one caveat is when you're shooting the last shot and you're tied or down 1, cause then average efficiency doesn't matter, just raw percentages, but even then the goal should be to get to the rim, cause it's a much better look.

There's a reason modern defenses are keyed to letting guys take mids and living with the results, cause 9 times out of 10 if you're playing efficient basketball on the other end, you will outpace them over the course of a game. I'm not saying completely abolish the mid, but that players should be more selective in when they take them, and they should never be the first option. If you can make them and you have no other choice, take the shot. But the offense shouldn't be looking for those shots, and you shouldn't be taking more than a few per game, just from a mathematics standpoint.

[DOT]

If the defense takes away the 3pt area and the inside, where are you going to score from then?
Of course, it need not be said that you take what the defense gives you unless you like taking contested 3s and not making them drop.

But that's the thing is, you have to be good enough to get through the defense and take good shots

If you're settling for what the defense gives you, then the defense has won. Sure, you could win a game off that, but the vast majority of the time, if the defense is forcing you into less efficient shots, you will lose.

[Thugger HBC]

The mid range still has it's value, just shouldn't be the staple of an offense. From a playoffs perspective, the mid range value increases due to tighter defenses.

[mpharris36]

The mid range still has it's value, just shouldn't be the staple of an offense. From a playoffs perspective, the mid range value increases due to tighter defenses.

yup still need to take a make mid ranges to win especially in playoffs because good teams (good defenses) will take away something form an offense. It's kind why Harden struggles so much in the playoffs. The officials call less fouls and teams will take away the 3 point shot.

[Capn'O]

Also, if you don't have the lane you need to stop and pop. If you're not a threat for that, most can't take the lane.

Edit - similar to what mpharris said.

[Clyde_Style]

The mid range still has it's value, just shouldn't be the staple of an offense. From a playoffs perspective, the mid range value increases due to tighter defenses.

yup still need to take a make mid ranges to win especially in playoffs because good teams (good defenses) will take away something form an offense. It's kind why Harden struggles so much in the playoffs. The officials call less fouls and teams will take away the 3 point shot.

And if teams don't learn how to execute all facets of their offense in the regular season it is probably too late to master those adjustments in the playoffs when your three point game gets disrupted or your shooters go cold (which is going to happen).

While GS can play both facets they became very dependent on the three. They did lose to TO not just because KD was not available, but because they were defended by TO very well. You could say TO (with Kahwi) is not better on offense in theory, but in reality they executed in the paint and mid-range better WHILE disrupting GS's 3-point offense.

Once Klay went down, it was a wrap.

[DOT]

The mid range still has it's value, just shouldn't be the staple of an offense. From a playoffs perspective, the mid range value increases due to tighter defenses.

yup still need to take a make mid ranges to win especially in playoffs because good teams (good defenses) will take away something form an offense. It's kind why Harden struggles so much in the playoffs. The officials call less fouls and teams will take away the 3 point shot.

And if teams don't learn how to execute all facets of their offense in the regular season it is probably too late to master those adjustments in the playoffs when your three point game gets disrupted or your shooters go cold (which is going to happen).

While GS can play both facets they became very dependent on the three. They did lose to TO not just because KD was not available, but because they were defended by TO very well. You could say TO (with Kahwi) is not better on offense in theory, but in reality they executed in the paint and mid-range better WHILE disrupting GS's 3-point offense.

Once Klay went down, it was a wrap.

There's this persistent myth that GS is a team that solely relies on 3s and is filled with good shooters. Once you get past KD, Steph, and Klay, they really don't have any shooters. In fact, only one other player logged more than one made 3 a game (Quinn Cook, at a tremendous 1.1 3PM). Klay's actually a really good mid range shooter, and he shoots about as many mids as he does 3s. Steph's really good too, so good that he was almost as efficient from long 2 as he was from 3 two years ago which is insane. Same thing with KD, really prolific mid range scorer who takes more mids than 3s (and was actually slightly more efficient last year than from 3 cause he only shot like 35% from 3, but I digress).

The fact is, the big reason why Toronto was able to D up so well is they didn't really have to worry about anyone other than Steph and Klay shooting, and after Klay went down, only Steph. That's why 3pt shooting role players are such a commodity, cause if GS had one more player who could reliably knock down 3s, that ruins Toronto's whole defense

[Clyde_Style]

yup still need to take a make mid ranges to win especially in playoffs because good teams (good defenses) will take away something form an offense. It's kind why Harden struggles so much in the playoffs. The officials call less fouls and teams will take away the 3 point shot.

And if teams don't learn how to execute all facets of their offense in the regular season it is probably too late to master those adjustments in the playoffs when your three point game gets disrupted or your shooters go cold (which is going to happen).

While GS can play both facets they became very dependent on the three. They did lose to TO not just because KD was not available, but because they were defended by TO very well. You could say TO (with Kahwi) is not better on offense in theory, but in reality they executed in the paint and mid-range better WHILE disrupting GS's 3-point offense.

Once Klay went down, it was a wrap.

There's this persistent myth that GS is a team that solely relies on 3s and is filled with good shooters. Once you get past KD, Steph, and Klay, they really don't have any shooters. In fact, only one other player logged more than one made 3 a game (Quinn Cook, at a tremendous 1.1 3PM). Klay's actually a really good mid range shooter, and he shoots about as many mids as he does 3s. Steph's really good too, so good that he was almost as efficient from long 2 as he was from 3 two years ago which is insane. Same thing with KD, really prolific mid range scorer who takes more mids than 3s (and was actually slightly more efficient last year than from 3 cause he only shot like 35% from 3, but I digress).

The fact is, the big reason why Toronto was able to D up so well is they didn't really have to worry about anyone other than Steph and Klay shooting, and after Klay went down, only Steph. That's why 3pt shooting role players are such a commodity, cause if GS had one more player who could reliably knock down 3s, that ruins Toronto's whole defense

That is another way of describing the same thing so yeah.

I'd add that the agenda to fill a roster with three point shooters at all positions or at least deep into the rotation puts a great burden on any franchise to ALSO deploy those same players with the other important skills that mesh into an effective team.

IOW, some of those role players have to be very good at something else like defense or rebounding or facilitating or else you risk having a team full of shooters, but not a team than can play effective playoff ball in other facets of the game.

Money shooters like JJ Redick who can play team ball are not that plentiful and nobody needs more than one Steve Novak on their roster.

So instead of saying a club needs most guys to be able to shoot the three, I'd say it is more like you need 2 or 3 really good shooters and then several players who can hit from deep without it being their primary contribution. And the rest are just good at one or two things or they just thrive around the basket (like Mitch does right now even if his shooting range does grow).

If you draft a young Dennis Rodman (which we kind of did), you thank your lucky stars and then you adapt some of your concepts to maximize special players who are not three point shooters. Every club is different based on their best players strengths. Talent should be the primary defining value of roster construction, not copy catting whatever is the current trend.

Regardless of where your team's particular talent strengths lie, you do need some solid three point shooters to win, but you don't need the best three point shooters in the league to win a chip.

[DOT]

And if teams don't learn how to execute all facets of their offense in the regular season it is probably too late to master those adjustments in the playoffs when your three point game gets disrupted or your shooters go cold (which is going to happen).

While GS can play both facets they became very dependent on the three. They did lose to TO not just because KD was not available, but because they were defended by TO very well. You could say TO (with Kahwi) is not better on offense in theory, but in reality they executed in the paint and mid-range better WHILE disrupting GS's 3-point offense.

Once Klay went down, it was a wrap.

There's this persistent myth that GS is a team that solely relies on 3s and is filled with good shooters. Once you get past KD, Steph, and Klay, they really don't have any shooters. In fact, only one other player logged more than one made 3 a game (Quinn Cook, at a tremendous 1.1 3PM). Klay's actually a really good mid range shooter, and he shoots about as many mids as he does 3s. Steph's really good too, so good that he was almost as efficient from long 2 as he was from 3 two years ago which is insane. Same thing with KD, really prolific mid range scorer who takes more mids than 3s (and was actually slightly more efficient last year than from 3 cause he only shot like 35% from 3, but I digress).

The fact is, the big reason why Toronto was able to D up so well is they didn't really have to worry about anyone other than Steph and Klay shooting, and after Klay went down, only Steph. That's why 3pt shooting role players are such a commodity, cause if GS had one more player who could reliably knock down 3s, that ruins Toronto's whole defense

That is another way of describing the same thing so yeah.

I'd add that the agenda to fill a roster with three point shooters at all positions or at least deep into the rotation puts a great burden on any franchise to ALSO deploy those same players with the other important skills that mesh into an effective team.

IOW, some of those role players have to be very good at something else like defense or rebounding or facilitating or else you risk having a team full of shooters, but not a team than can play effective playoff ball in other facets of the game.

Money shooters like JJ Redick who can play team ball are not that plentiful and nobody needs more than one Steve Novak on their roster.

So instead of saying a club needs most guys to be able to shoot the three, I'd say it is more like you need 2 or 3 really good shooters and then several players who can hit from deep without it being their primary contribution. And the rest are just good at one or two things or they just thrive around the basket (like Mitch does right now even if his shooting range does grow).

If you draft a young Dennis Rodman (which we kind of did), you thank your lucky stars and then you adapt some of your concepts to maximize special players who are not three point shooters. Every club is different based on their best players strengths. Talent should be the primary defining value of roster construction, not copy catting whatever is the current trend.

Regardless of where your team's particular talent strengths lie, you do need some solid three point shooters to win, but you don't need the best three point shooters in the league to win a chip.

Right, I mean, you definitely need guys who can shoot, that's just how you get other shots to be open. Guys are gonna think twice about doubling Curry if it means leaving open Klay Thompson instead of Iggy. When you're putting Iggy, Draymond, and Looney in the starting lineup, you don't have space for a Curry to operate. That's the big difference

So instead of saying a club needs most guys to be able to shoot the three, I'd say it is more like you need 2 or 3 really good shooters and then several players who can hit from deep without it being their primary contribution

That's really the same thing, no? The biggest thing is the threat to shoot, that's what gives you space. Like, you're not gonna tell Shaq to shoot 3s, but you're for damn sure gonna put 4 guys who can shoot around him, not just 1 or 2. And it's not really a trend, it's pretty proven that teams that have better shooting have better offenses. Even worked in the 90s with the Rockets, though they didn't shoot nearly as much as they would've today

You should construct your roster around its talents, like if say RJ is a franchise level talent, that's a different roster than you'd put around say, Curry or Dame, but the shooting is the one constant. Good teams need good shooters

[jvsimonetti0514]

https://hoopshype.com/nba2k/teams/?utm_source=smg&utm_medium=wasabi&utm_content=home-latest-news

FWIW the Knicks collective 2K rating has us the 6th best team in the east and 17th overall. Probably cuz we’re good roll player deep.

[iLLmatic860]

Read on Twitter

?s=21

[HarthorneWingo]

If the defense takes away the 3pt area and the inside, where are you going to score from then?
Of course, it need not be said that you take what the defense gives you unless you like taking contested 3s and not making them drop.

But that's the thing is, you have to be good enough to get through the defense and take good shots

If you're settling for what the defense gives you, then the defense has won. Sure, you could win a game off that, but the vast majority of the time, if the defense is forcing you into less efficient shots, you will lose.

Then why did the number mid-range 2s go up in the playoffs?

[HarthorneWingo]

Delonte West hitting hard times. Dude is apparently broke.

Read on Twitter

[Richard4444]

https://hoopshype.com/nba2k/teams/?utm_source=smg&utm_medium=wasabi&utm_content=home-latest-news

FWIW the Knicks collective 2K rating has us the 6th best team in the east and 17th overall. Probably cuz we’re good roll player deep.

If you discard Durant and Oladipo, we would start the season as the 4th best collective ranking in the east.

[Besart19]

Ellington was a Phill signing in the Tyson and Felton trade

[thebuzzardman]

Also, if you don't have the lane you need to stop and pop. If you're not a threat for that, most can't take the lane.

Edit - similar to what mpharris said.

I had meant to cover this in my post as well.

Also, I get that taking the a mid range is taking what the defense gives, but doesn't the threat of a good mid range shot potentially make a player's layup better, which is the better shot? Now, this is a difference between looking for this shot and having the ability to DO the shot, or often, as already stated, so I get that.

I'd still want players who are good mid range shooters, so teams just don't sag off them and lower the % of their layups. Obviously, they could pass instead for the higher % shot etc, but I guess I'm talking about an individual skill players can possess, as opposed to approach.

Still think there is a place for it, as long as a team doesn't fall in love with taking them over taking 3's and layups.

[Adelheid]

That is true; teams are not supposed to have predictable offense or schemes so much that the opposition is having a field day defending and using less energy for defense. Rockets 0-26 from 3 pt range during a playoff series is just something we dont want to see or happen to modern offenses. Seems like a show of hardheadedness to me.

[DOT]

If the defense takes away the 3pt area and the inside, where are you going to score from then?
Of course, it need not be said that you take what the defense gives you unless you like taking contested 3s and not making them drop.

But that's the thing is, you have to be good enough to get through the defense and take good shots

If you're settling for what the defense gives you, then the defense has won. Sure, you could win a game off that, but the vast majority of the time, if the defense is forcing you into less efficient shots, you will lose.

Then why did the number mid-range 2s go up in the playoffs?

Do you have a number for that?

Cause my numbers say that it's pretty even, at least for the Warriors and Raptors, but 3pt attempts are up way more than mids

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Fat Kat]

Read on Twitter