Why won't Woodson MAKE SMOOVE quit shooting jumpshots!

[dlpin]

By the way, here's the final nail in the coffin of the long 2:

http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008/03/29/rebounding-by-shot-location/

Share of offensive rebounds by position where the original shot was taken:

http://www.82games.com/rebounds.htm

The long 2 leads to the least amount of offensive rebounds.

To quote the two articles:

"longer three-point jumpers are rebounded by the offense more often than shorter two-point jumpers, but shots in the paint are rebounded by the offense even more frequently than three-pointers"

"So no shock here, but the "in the paint" shots lead to more contested rebounds, and the highest offensive rebound rate, with three-pointers being close, but those pesky two-point jumpers from outside, which we've picked on in other articles, are once again the least effective for the offensive team in terms of producing second chances! "

So to recap:

- Mid to long range 2-pt jumpers have a lower efg% than close up shots and 3 points

- mid to long range 2-point jumpers are responsible for less points per game than close up shots and 3 points

- mid to long range 2- point jumpers have a lower "points per shot" and "points per possession" than close up shots and 3 point shots

- mid to long range 2 point jumpers lead to less offensive rebounds than close up shots and three point shots

- mid to long range 2 point shots are less used than close us shots and 3 point shots combined

The ONLY reason to shoot a long 2 is that defenses focus more on close up shots and 3 point shots. I.e., an uncontested long 2 is sometimes better than a contested 3. But even then its not always.

Edited January 8, 2010 by dlpin

[dlpin]

Oh, and from the same website:

http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/

Where Players Score Points:

[Crank]

You guys keep taking about it's the "dumbest shot in basketball" . . . yet . . . the greatest player in the game absolutely kills people due to the fact that he makes a point to take midrange shots, instead of wasting more attempts from three. And the greatest player EVER, dominated people from midrange. If they couldn't get to the rim, they made sure that they developed their midrange shot to a high degree. The three point shot, to them, was used to simply enhance their game.

In Josh Smith's case, it's definitely a "dumb shot", because he can't shoot from anywhere. For others, it's a matter of simply taking timely threes, not taking threes just for the hell of it.

You know what . . . don't take my word for it though. Let one of the better midrange shooters ever in the NBA explain it to you. This is gospel folks.

NOTE: This guy was a CAREER 33% three point shooter . . but only averaged 2 three point attempts per game, instead of the almost 5 per game that Crawford averages in his career. Crawford could EASILY be this guy from an offensive standpoint.

you cant make those types of comparisons because its not fair to either player . Jamal Crawford by the end of next year will probably be in the top 15 all time in the nba in 3pt fg made . He is on his way to his seventh consecutive year with 100 3pt fg made . Cassell has never even made a 100 his game was never about long distance shooting going back to his florida state days .

Sam has always been a pg who can shoot it kinda like Steve Nash is now but his game due to his size was more midrange as he preferred to back down smaller pg's and shoot over them

Crawford imo is a scorer who can playmake

[MaceCase]

Those heat/shot graphs are trippy. I wish Smoove would frame one above his bed and realize that he takes all of his jumpshots from the the dark blue areas which isn't a good sign.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

A lot to address, So let's go through the important points:

- You're stuck on the "long 2 argument", while my argument is midrange jumpers period. As Sam Cassell so eloquentlly pointed out, the midrange game is also from the free throw line extended, in the paint ( just inside the FT line ), on the wing, and on the baseline. And as Sam pointed out, the "lost art" of the midrange jumper is gone.

I personally blame the college 3 point line, and the fact that 6-10 guys would rather take 14 - 20 footers, than to bang down on the blocks and get scores around the rim. The reason why you see all of these supposedly good shooters fail on the pro level, is because they were never taught how to create their own shot from midrange, especially from 14 - 18 feet that Sam Cassell focused on.

- I was talking about Kobe and Jordan. Both guys utilized the midrange shot the way you're supposed to. As for your statement about Bird and Jordan, that's flat out wrong. Neither of those guys fired away from 3, because they always tried to get good shots from closer in. Bird would work the baseline, posting people up to either drive or shoot the fadeaway jumper. He didn't jack up 4 - 5 threes a game, like today's players routinely do. The most he ever shot in a season was 3.1

Same with Jordan. He was a slasher, not a shooter. But once he got old, the 14 - 20 foot jumpshot was his calling card. He knew that his 32% three point shooting was a detriment to his game at times, so he made a point to get closet to the rim. And if he couldn't get to the rim, he was posing after a made 15 - 18 foot jumper . . whether it was over Craig Ehlo or Bryon Russell

Neither Bird nor Jordan used the 3 point shot more than 25% of the time, unlike today's "shooters". Get to the rim, or shoot the midrange jumper, was their game.

- It is misleading to keep describing 10 - 23 foot shots, as being part of the eFG. What you actually shoot from that range, is going to be your eFG% regardless. No adjustment needed. So it's an unfair comparison to then bolster the 3 point shooting with an eFG%, and comparing that to the actual shooting in other areas. Adjustment or not, the 3 point line is still the most missed shot in basketball. JJ and Crawford really picked up their shooting from 3 point range last month, after starting off the year "Smoove-like" from 3. But then again, that's the schizophrenic nature of mediocre 3 point shooters. Great one minute . . . horrible the next.

- As for your supposed "dagger", it only proves that shots from that area aren't offensively rebounded as much. Easy explanation for that though, which I've already alluded to . . and this is also the main argument others have made against Smoove taking any type of jumper.

It's because you not only have guards and SFs shooting from that range, you have more PFs and Centers shooting from there as well ( especially the PFs ). Add to the fact that the guards and forwards who do shoot from that range, may have not fully developed their game in that area.

That's the major beef with Marvin right? He was a guy that had a pretty good midrange shot. He was told to develop the 3, and he did just that last season. Then his shooting from that area started to slide. This year, we've seen just about everything fall off . . . except his mediocre 3 point shot.

- he's having trouble making the open 20 footer

- he hasn't developed the off the dribble 15 footer, to create CONSISTENT ( i'll get back to that word shortly ) offense for himself

- and he's getting to the FT line less often than in previous seasons

So now we have a Marvin Williams that either needs to get to the rim . . . or we're screwed if he can't make his first few jumpers. His shots have been reduced, so he has to maximize his attepts.

So no, that isn't a "dagger" stat in my opinion. It depends on who is taking the shots from that area and who is under the basket when the shot is taken. Your big people are going to be near the basket when a close range shot or a 3 pointer is taken. But because big people are also expect to shoot 15 - 20 footers in today's NBA, they may not be at the rim. So when they take a shot, the big man closest to them is in better position to get the rebound.

That's why most of us don't want Josh Smith taking ANY kind of jumpshot.

Like I said . . . simple explanation, according to who is taking the shot.

[mrhonline]

Those heat/shot graphs are trippy. I wish Smoove would frame one above his bed and realize that he takes all of his jumpshots from the the dark blue areas which isn't a good sign.

I told him that years ago. Shame on him for not listening.

[mrhonline]

As an aside, I think it would be an interesting idea for some league (like the dying ABA) to implement a "one-point zone" from about 12 feet and in. That way, you have a three-point zone, a two-point zone, and a one-point zone.

Would totally revolutionize the way offenses look.

[dlpin]

- It is misleading to keep describing 10 - 23 foot shots, as being part of the eFG. What you actually shoot from that range, is going to be your eFG% regardless. No adjustment needed. So it's an unfair comparison to then bolster the 3 point shooting with an eFG%, and comparing that to the actual shooting in other areas. Adjustment or not, the 3 point line is still the most missed shot in basketball. JJ and Crawford really picked up their shooting from 3 point range last month, after starting off the year "Smoove-like" from 3. But then again, that's the schizophrenic nature of mediocre 3 point shooters. Great one minute . . . horrible the next.

How can you not understand that eFG% is simply a measure of how many points you get per shot, and as such it is a better measure of fg%? In fact, eFG x2 = points per shot.

I have never, ever, seen someone so stubborn.

It is not "unfair" to boost three point shooting fg% simply becaue 3>2. How can you not get that 3>2?

You know why Jordan developed the mid range jumper? Because teams did absolutely everything to keep him out of the paint. That is also why he developed a 3 point shot.

Great players have to develop a good jumper not because the jumper is the best shot, but it's because it is the worst, and as such defenses tend to leave players open to shoot them.

Again, look at the chart with the points by region. Look at the chart with the rebounds by region. And it has nothing to do with SF and PF shooting from there. Just read the 82games article.

I give up. I have never seen someone so stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence.

To sum up again:

- Mid to long range 2-pt jumpers have a lower efg% than close up shots and 3 points

- mid to long range 2-point jumpers are responsible for less points per game than close up shots and 3 points

- mid to long range 2- point jumpers have a lower "points per shot" and "points per possession" than close up shots and 3 point shots

- mid to long range 2 point jumpers lead to less offensive rebounds than close up shots and three point shots

- mid to long range 2 point shots are less used than close us shots and 3 point shots combined

[mrhonline]

Another aside:

The Hawks are one of the worst perimeter defending teams in the NBA.

[mrhonline]

Great players have to develop a good jumper not because the jumper is the best shot, but it's because it is the worst, and as such defenses tend to leave players open to shoot them.

There are currently only around a dozen players (15+ min/game) for whom the mid-range shot is both more effective than their 3pt shot AND a positive possession (50+% success rate).

[TheNorthCydeRises]

you cant make those types of comparisons because its not fair to either player . Jamal Crawford by the end of next year will probably be in the top 15 all time in the nba in 3pt fg made . He is on his way to his seventh consecutive year with 100 3pt fg made . Cassell has never even made a 100 his game was never about long distance shooting going back to his florida state days .

Sam has always been a pg who can shoot it kinda like Steve Nash is now but his game due to his size was more midrange as he preferred to back down smaller pg's and shoot over them

Crawford imo is a scorer who can playmake

He'll be in the top 15 because he jacks up a ton of 3s. 30 - 40% of his shots will come from 3 in a particular season. It's not that he's shooting well, it's because he's jacking up tons of 3s, much like Gilbert Arenas does.

And Cassell was a playmaker. Had a few 6 or 7 assit seasons in Milwaukee and Minnesota. Most important, he was a guy who used his midrange shot to keep the offense on a steady path. If they needed a score, he could usually give it to them via his midrange game.

Gilbert is the poster child for the eFG. A guy whose star poweris bolstered because he gets red hot in games. Then he goes ice cold, taking the same shots he did in the red hot game ( usually a ton of 3s ). But that's OK. The eFG% will save him.

Meanwhile, people don't realize that in that 3 - 8 3FG game that he had, that he actually was 1 for his first 6, shooting the Wiz out of the game. A guy like him, that can get within 15 feet of the basket, should always look to take that shot when he starts out 0 - 2 from three. But they don't. It's bombs away from 3.

Meanwhile, the other team just went on a 8 - 2 run, because you took two ill-advised 3s in 5 possessions. That's the essence of my beef with the eFG, when it comes to mediocre shooters.

It's funny though. Barkley routinely says "you live by the 3, you die by the 3". I've seen few teams that shoot 33% from three, actually be successul from living by the 3.

[dlpin]

It's funny though. Barkley routinely says "you live by the 3, you die by the 3". I've seen few teams that shoot 33% from three, actually be successul from living by the 3.

Ask him if the long jumper is better.

The ideal alternative to the three is going to the rim, not shooting a long jumper.

[Atlantaholic]

Ask him if the long jumper is better.

The ideal alternative to the three is going to the rim, not shooting a long jumper.

Too bad for us that Boston doesn't go to Northcyde´s school of basketball.