Proof That Ignoring the Midrange is a Mistake
They say numbers never lie, but do they always tell the full truth?
Every season we read articles about how the midrange game is dead — that it’s ineffective from an analytical perspective. If you’re looking at it purely from a statistical standpoint I would agree with you. But basketball isn’t played on paper. The variables in a basketball game are constantly changing, which makes certain things nearly impossible to quantify.
The numbers behind the current movement to minimize the midrange seems to prove the inefficiency of long 2s, but it does so only in isolation. What I mean by that is this: If you are looking at the midrange game solely from the perspective of statistics, then yes, they are inefficient shots when compared to closer range 2-pointers and 3-pointers.
But what if we stopped looking at midrange shots in isolation? What if instead we started viewing them as a means to an end? What if the threat of an efficient midrange shot was just the setup for a better, more efficient shot (i.e. a layup or a 3-pointer)?
That’s what I’m hoping to explore in this article. I’m not one who relies purely on numbers because numbers can’t tell us everything. Neither am I curmudgeon and decries everything analytical or what would be considered advanced statistics a la Charles Barkley.
I believe those who rely on analytics too heavily, fail to account for the midrange game as a way to set up more efficient shots. The mistake that most make is ignoring the midrange altogether.
Gregg Popovich, one of the greatest coaches in basketball, has the Spurs shooting a healthy number of mid-range shots.
Here are a few reasons why I think that is:
- He has players capable of knocking down these shots.
- He knows it would be foolish to completely disregard this area of the floor.
- He realizes the midrange game can open up other areas of the floor, especially under the basket.
Basketball is a Game of Chess
Sometimes you have to bait your opponent with a little misdirection, in order to set them up with a bigger threat. In that sense, basketball is like a game of chess. That’s how the midrange game should be viewed — as a means to get more of those higher reward shots with more efficiency.
The advanced stats crowd always points to the fact that you only have to shoot the 3 at a 33% percent rate for it to be just as efficient as shooting a 2 at 50%. Last year the league average for 3-point shooting was just above 35%. The league as a whole was shooting threes at an efficient rate. But remember efficient doesn’t always equal great.
The Houston Rockets under GM Daryl Morey have been the poster child team for this new analytical era in the NBA. Just take a look at their shot chart from two seasons ago:
Their style of basketball is predicated on letting the numbers dictate how they play basketball, particularly on offense. Midrange/long 2s are a no-no under Morey.
They’re playing the game as if it’s played on paper, which makes them somewhat predictable. In the past three seasons, the Rockets have ranked 4th, 12th, and 8th in offensive efficiency. Not bad, but shouldn’t they be at or near the top? All they do is shoot efficient shots — 3’s and shots in the paint.
Why aren’t they ranked higher? Do they not have the right players?
I think part of the reason is because they are predictable. Other teams know how the Rockets like to get their buckets. If you know a team doesn’t like taking midrange shots, then you also know they’re not practicing them. So you’ll be begging them to shoot those midrange shots.
The mistake they may be making is not allowing the midrange to set up easier shots in the paint and around the perimeter.
Player Who Use The Midrange Effectively
Let’s take Chris Paul as an example, he is a supremely effective midrange shot maker. We all know that one of Paul’s sweet spots on the floor is at the right elbow. How many time’s have we witnessed him come off a screen and sink one of those patented elbow jumpers?
Not only is CP3 efficient at the elbow, but just his threat of sinking those “dreaded” long twos opens up so many opportunities for his teammates — opportunities that the advanced stats guys drool over, specifically slam dunks for Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan and open threes for the likes of JJ Reddick and Paul Pierce.
He draws in so many defenders…
…that get his teammates wide open shots.
As you can see Paul is deadly coming off the pick-and-roll. Both his shooting and passing abilities make him difficult to defend. He commands so much attention and he constantly keeps defenders guessing as to what he’s going to do. He keeps everybody honest — even at 15 feet.
James Harden on the other hand, while he’s extremely difficult to defend, is a little more predictable. You know that once he steps inside the 3-point line that he’s trying to get to the basket. He’s not really looking for a 17 foot jumper.
Let’s breakdown this sequence between the Clippers and the Spurs to help illustrate that an efficient midrange game can set up easy buckets for your teammates.
Here we see CP3 on the left wing being guarded by LeMarcus Aldridge. DeAndre Jordan (guarded by Tim Duncan) is flashing across the key to come set a screen for Paul so that he’s going toward the middle of the floor.
Jordan sets the screen and Paul makes his move toward the key, right at the elbow.
Duncan realizes Paul is at his sweet spot on the floor and tries to step out to defend him knowing he can knock these shots down at an efficient rate.
In doing so, Duncan leaves Jordan wide open underneath the basket and all Paul has to do is slip him the ball.
The analytics department is going crazy. All thanks to the threat of a 15-foot jump shot.
Can you imagine how different this play might be if it were someone like Ricky Rubio coming off the screen instead of Chris Paul? The threat of Chris Paul’s deadly 15-foot jumpshot set up a more efficient 2-foot dunk. Does that dunk happen without Chris Paul?
What’s the stat for Tim Duncan thinking, oh crap I better step out on him?
There isn’t one.
And that’s why I say the midrange game shouldn’t be looked at in isolation. Midrange shots shouldn’t be viewed entirely as being either a good shot or a bad shot because not all jump shooters are created equal. We all know 2-foot shots are easier than 15-foot ones, but what if that 2-foot shot was only made possible by the threat of the 15-foot one? Where’s the stat for that?
The Rockets should take some notes, especially with James Harden playing point guard now. I could see Harden making similar type plays. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out under Mike D’Antoni in Houston. Harden’s already been dropping dimes like Steve Nash.
The Middle
Whatever your stance on analytics is, it’d be wise not to sway too far to one side or the other. If you focus only on the numbers and advanced stats, you’ll lose perspective on the mental and emotional side of basketball. If you disregard the numbers entirely, you’ll fail to realize where you in fact, could become more efficient. You need to have a successful combination of the two.
You don’t want it to be an either/or thing — it should be both. The middle is where you want to be. The best teams in the NBA find a way to take what is useful and discard that which isn’t.
If I were a coach, I would encourage my players, especially the guards, to practice their midrange shots in order to become a scoring threat from all spots on the floor. One would only need to highlight Chris Paul to prove the benefits of this.
-Did You Like This?-
Then you’ll love the newsletter!
If you found this article valuable would you mind recommending it?
