Offensive Question

[pnkranger]

Did we make more than 10 mid-range jumpshots this year? I feel like we didn't take many and didn't make many. Is that a system-design or a lack of offensive ability?

 

[CoachTalk]

Did we make more than 10 mid-range jumpshots this year? I feel like we didn't take many and didn't make many. Is that a system-design or a lack of offensive ability?

Mid range is a dying shot.

Very few practice it. Most systems are 3’s and paint shots.

 

[WichitaSooner]

Did we make more than 10 mid-range jumpshots this year? I feel like we didn't take many and didn't make many. Is that a system-design or a lack of offensive ability?

I’m sure it’s system. No one shoots them these days, with the Iowa State stud being one notable exception.

 

[TheMont]

Harkless alone made more than 10 mid-range jumpers.

 

[AdaSooner]

I think 10 is too low!

While it’s true there were more attempts and not as many makes from three than I wanted to see in a productive offense, seems to me Goldwire and Harkless in particular took more midrange shots than anyone. Gibson, Hill and Jacob on occasion dribbled into midrange shots when they were chased off of the three point line. I feel sure there were others, but I’m reasonably certain your total of 10 is way too low. Wish there was a stat available somewhere to do more than offer a speculative opinion.

 

[pnkranger]

Harkless alone made more than 10 mid-range jumpers.

Was just exaggerating for effect. Yes, Harkless does shoot them, but almost always late shot clock when things are breaking down.

 

[steverocks35]

The mid-range is now a bad shot. The pros (and probably college teams) track "non-paint two point shots" so they can educate players to stop shooting them.

 

[WTSooner]

It's not a smart shot statistically. Get closer and have a better chance of scoring, or be behind the arc and get the additional point. NBA teams have moved away from it for that very reason.

I also think the Moser offense probably doesn't promote it, but it's always "available" for a player driving that can't get all the way to the paint.

 

[AdaSooner]

The mid-range is now a bad shot. The pros (and probably college teams) track "non-paint two point shots" so they can educate players to stop shooting them.

Maybe so, but there are several pros who have made a living on taking and making a high percentage of midrange shots. Chris Paul and Russell Westbrook come immediately to mind. There are others I’m sure.

I can’t imagine why coaches would tell players two point shots outside the paint are bad. It’s certainly not bad if you’re an opposing coach. Defending a significantly smaller area of the court would make his job easier.

 

[WichitaSooner]

Maybe so, but there are several pros who have made a living on taking and making a high percentage of midrange shots. Chris Paul and Russell Westbrook come immediately to mind. There are others I’m sure.

I can’t imagine why coaches would tell players two point shots outside the paint are bad. It’s certainly not bad if you’re an opposing coach. Defending a significantly smaller area of the court would make his job easier.

I disagree on this one. Coaches are thrilled if their opponents take twos from outside the paint. That’s the primary goal of most defenses … get your opponent to take 15-20 footers.

 

[AdaSooner]

I disagree on this one. Coaches are thrilled if their opponents take twos from outside the paint. That’s the primary goal of most defenses … get your opponent to take 15-20 footers.

In my mind, midrange shots can be 12 to 17 footers, so maybe my old school interpretation of the distance is flawed.

 

[CoachTalk]

Maybe so, but there are several pros who have made a living on taking and making a high percentage of midrange shots. Chris Paul and Russell Westbrook come immediately to mind. There are others I’m sure.

I can’t imagine why coaches would tell players two point shots outside the paint are bad. It’s certainly not bad if you’re an opposing coach. Defending a significantly smaller area of the court would make his job easier.

They are telling them. I assure you. At all levels. Why take a 19ft shot when it’s worth the same as 1ft?

Or step back 1.5ft and get 3 points.

Very few shot mid ranges.

 

[steverocks35]

In my mind, midrange shots can be 12 to 17 footers, so maybe my old school interpretation of the distance is flawed.

Anything inside the 3-point line that's not in the paint is a bad shot according to the analytics.

And I don't know if I would cite Russell Westbrook in any discussion about good shooting lol.

 

[Sooner04]

And yet, if you've got a guy who can hit them it opens a glaring hole in any defense. Andrew Fitzgerald used to live at either elbow. Drove Frank Martin nuts. The modern D can't defend it.

 

[skyvue]

And yet, if you've got a guy who can hit them it opens a glaring hole in any defense. Andrew Fitzgerald used to live at either elbow. Drove Frank Martin nuts. The modern D can't defend it.

This. Many of the above posts depict in-the-point shots as if they're automatic. They certainly are not. You're more closely defended there, and often by a guy several inches taller than the shooter. We missed plenty of close-in shots this season and had our share blocked or altered, too. If you practice shooting shots a few feet out, you'll more often be shooting an open shot than if you drive three to six feet closer.

 

[AdaSooner]

Anything inside the 3-point line that's not in the paint is a bad shot according to the analytics.

And I don't know if I would cite Russell Westbrook in any discussion about good shooting lol.

I’m all too familiar with Westbrook’s game from watching him play when he was with the Thunder. If I was his coach, layups and dunks are the only shots I would want him to take...with one exception! He was Chris-Paul-like deadly from fifteen and in, especially on the elbow. He would just rise up and knock down that shot over most any defender in his area with incredible accuracy.

Everything else would be off limits if I was his coach.
Of course, I would be fired before the ink on my contract was dry! Lol

 

[pnkranger]

I don't think it should be a bread and better staple, but it has to be a pressure release valve. If teams don't have to guard for that shot, then it's far more congested at the basket, or they can play up on you at the 3 point line, knowing helpside D will be able to come over before you get to the rim.

I am okay with it not being a programmed shot in the offense, but when you struggle to score and lose a dozen games by a couple of baskets, it seems like that shot would have been the difference between a very good season and a mediocre season...

Demar Derozan and Chris Paul excel at this shot. Bulls are 5th in the east. Suns are 1st in the West.

 

[allday92]

And yet, if you've got a guy who can hit them it opens a glaring hole in any defense. Andrew Fitzgerald used to live at either elbow. Drove Frank Martin nuts. The modern D can't defend it.

It's not that the modern D can't defend it, it's that the modern D has to give something up with the way the game is called, so they give up midrange shots. They're inefficient unless you have a player who excels at it. If you have a player that can efficiently score at all 3 levels (3, midrange, paint) you've hit the jackpot. If you don't have that type of player, your offensive scheme should be to get as many clean looks from 3 and in the paint as you can.

Depending on the location in the mid-range, the NCAA average is right around 35%. Utilizing eFG, you'd have to shoot around 24% from the 3 to be more efficient than an average Div 1 mid-range shooter.

Specifically for OU, we we're more efficient from the left elbow and left baseline compared to right elbow and right baseline.

Left Baseline: 17/44 = 44.7%, NCAA Div 1 Average: 34.4%
Left Elbow: 15/34 = 44.1%, NCAA Div 1 Average: 35.1%
Right Elbow: 16/55 = 29.1%, NCAA Div 1 Average: 36.5%
Right Baseline: 16/48 33%, NCAA Div 1 Average: 34.1%

You can view shot charts here and compare teams, pretty cool site: https://cbbanalytics.com/tools/shot-charts

 

[Dr Sleep]

It's not that the modern D can't defend it, it's that the modern D has to give something up with the way the game is called, so they give up midrange shots. They're inefficient unless you have a player who excels at it. If you have a player that can efficiently score at all 3 levels (3, midrange, paint) you've hit the jackpot. If you don't have that type of player, your offensive scheme should be to get as many clean looks from 3 and in the paint as you can.

Depending on the location in the mid-range, the NCAA average is right around 35%. Utilizing eFG, you'd have to shoot around 24% from the 3 to be more efficient than an average Div 1 mid-range shooter.

Specifically for OU, we we're more efficient from the left elbow and left baseline compared to right elbow and right baseline.

Left Baseline: 17/44 = 44.7%, NCAA Div 1 Average: 34.4%
Left Elbow: 15/34 = 44.1%, NCAA Div 1 Average: 35.1%
Right Elbow: 16/55 = 29.1%, NCAA Div 1 Average: 36.5%
Right Baseline: 16/48 33%, NCAA Div 1 Average: 34.1%

You can view shot charts here and compare teams, pretty cool site: https://cbbanalytics.com/tools/shot-charts

Interesting that the left/right was so different. If the mid range shot is wide open take the shot. otherwise drive and/or kick it out.

 

[BoulderSooner]

Anything inside the 3-point line that's not in the paint is a bad shot according to the analytics.

generally speaking this is 100% factual


there are of course individual outliers . like kevin durant who are so good at mid range jumpers that they don't have bad shots ...