Very unimpressed with the way Weschester ran their offense, it was sloppy and ad hoc
WAY too many mid range shots (why is this allowed in the Dleague or for the real Knicks?)
Thanasis did absolutely nothing this game (the only reason why I watched initially)
Sanchez looked good

Reno did not attempt any midrange shots either layups or threes
They seemed so much better coached than we are. Very smooth run and gun offense
Quincy Miller was an all out beast

mreinman wrote:

Vmart wrote:Remember that Galloway was a vital part of what they did.

good point. Still don't understand why they have the green light to take all those shots.

It's weird to me that shooting threes and lob dunks are what's considered good basketball nowadays. Clyde calls the mid range game lost art and that's so true. Guys don't even converge on the basket on fast breaks anymore. Everyone pans out to spot up for the three.

mreinman wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Vmart wrote:Remember that Galloway was a vital part of what they did.

good point. Still don't understand why they have the green light to take all those shots.

It's weird to me that shooting threes and lob dunks are what's considered good basketball nowadays. Clyde calls the mid range game lost art and that's so true. Guys don't even converge on the basket on fast breaks anymore. Everyone pans out to spot up for the three.

because the 3 point line cause the mid range game to become extremely inefficient and most good systems have eliminated it.

I think a good way to look at the mid-ranged shot is as a anecessary evil to improve the quality and quantity of shot attempts from the more efficient areas of the court. The mid-range shot is more valuable in its ability to keep defenses honest that it is in raw efficiency. In other words, being labeled a "threat from mid-range" is just as important as actually making shots from that area.

Dagger wrote:

mreinman wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Vmart wrote:Remember that Galloway was a vital part of what they did.

good point. Still don't understand why they have the green light to take all those shots.

It's weird to me that shooting threes and lob dunks are what's considered good basketball nowadays. Clyde calls the mid range game lost art and that's so true. Guys don't even converge on the basket on fast breaks anymore. Everyone pans out to spot up for the three.

because the 3 point line cause the mid range game to become extremely inefficient and most good systems have eliminated it.

I think a good way to look at the mid-ranged shot is as a anecessary evil to improve the quality and quantity of shot attempts from the more efficient areas of the court. The mid-range shot is more valuable in its ability to keep defenses honest that it is in raw efficiency. In other words, being labeled a "threat from mid-range" is just as important as actually making shots from that area.

Seems like a very cerebral way of reasoning Dagger

The midrange shot is not an "inefficient shot" if you're Ray Allen, Reggie, Rip Hamilton

Which maybe more players should start learning how to hit

Because there are plenty bad 3pt shooters in this league and 3s are not high percentage shots

EnySpree wrote:

F500ONE wrote:

Dagger wrote:

mreinman wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Vmart wrote:Remember that Galloway was a vital part of what they did.

good point. Still don't understand why they have the green light to take all those shots.

It's weird to me that shooting threes and lob dunks are what's considered good basketball nowadays. Clyde calls the mid range game lost art and that's so true. Guys don't even converge on the basket on fast breaks anymore. Everyone pans out to spot up for the three.

because the 3 point line cause the mid range game to become extremely inefficient and most good systems have eliminated it.

I think a good way to look at the mid-ranged shot is as a anecessary evil to improve the quality and quantity of shot attempts from the more efficient areas of the court. The mid-range shot is more valuable in its ability to keep defenses honest that it is in raw efficiency. In other words, being labeled a "threat from mid-range" is just as important as actually making shots from that area.

Seems like a very cerebral way of reasoning Dagger

The midrange shot is not an "inefficient shot" if you're Ray Allen, Reggie, Rip Hamilton

Which maybe more players should start learning how to hit

Because there are plenty bad 3pt shooters in this league and 3s are not high percentage shots

3 ' and lob passes are the most inefficient shots. The mid range used to be the where the activity was.

All offense no matter how you look at it starts in the paint. You need guards to drive, you need post players to be able to finish inside. This creates your passing lanes to take uncontested 3's. That's basketball. The best teams aren't ignoring the mid range. If you watch Atlanta they live in the mid range.

anyway, too much nonsense is out there about the triangle. Every team runs an offense. You play to your teams strengths. The triangle is built for guys to operate and play the way they want to play. We have no leadership from the main guys and the new guys coming in seen to be providing that which is so disgusting to me.

We'll be ok. We will get professional guys here to fill out the roster and all of a sudden everything is going to work well for us.

The knicks are #1 in the league in long 2's while Atlanta is 23rd (only because of Horford).

Atlanta is 5th in the league % of 3's attempted.

Top 8:

Houston
LAC
Portland (even with Lam Aldridge chucking all those long 2's)
Suns
Atlanta
Dallas
GS
Toronto

Best shots are the ones near the basket followed by the 3. The worst shot is between 16 and 23 feet (the knicks have a comfortable lead in this brilliant shot attempt).

mreinman wrote:

Dagger wrote:

mreinman wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Vmart wrote:Remember that Galloway was a vital part of what they did.

good point. Still don't understand why they have the green light to take all those shots.

It's weird to me that shooting threes and lob dunks are what's considered good basketball nowadays. Clyde calls the mid range game lost art and that's so true. Guys don't even converge on the basket on fast breaks anymore. Everyone pans out to spot up for the three.

because the 3 point line cause the mid range game to become extremely inefficient and most good systems have eliminated it.

I think a good way to look at the mid-ranged shot is as a anecessary evil to improve the quality and quantity of shot attempts from the more efficient areas of the court. The mid-range shot is more valuable in its ability to keep defenses honest that it is in raw efficiency. In other words, being labeled a "threat from mid-range" is just as important as actually making shots from that area.

the good teams are not really taking those shots anymore. we seem to be doing more and more of it both here and in the d-league

FistOfOakley wrote:good offense is not about getting layups and 3s... it's about getting the shot you want... shot selection is part of it and 3s are better than long 2s but as defenses get tougher how many times down the court can you get the exact shot that you want?

alot of folks shoot below 50% by the rim when they are contested and a lot of folks shoot below 35% from 3... that leaves only a few subset of players who can accomplish what you are looking for... and most of them don't get that by themselves.. plays are run and have to be executed...

that's why guys like dirk, lamarcus and yes even our own melo are valuable... there is going to be a certain percentage of shots throughout a game that are going to be really tough to get a layup or an open 3 depending on what you are doing... these guys up your percentage on plays where you can't find the right shot... from a game theory perspective they make you defend all parts of the court especially during the playoffs when defenses get really tough....

LA has been killed in the media for taking too many inefficient shots. Melo too. Dirk can take it because of the rate he hits it at.

There is a reason why teams like Houston has eliminated this shot. Atlanta, Portland and SA only have the guys shooting them who just cant hit 3's.

Watch that Reno game (highest scoring team in the d-league by a mile). They don't take any midrange shots yet they can score at will and efficiently.

Check out what Fred Hoiberg is doing with Iowa State.

Unless they take away the arc, the (long) midrange shots are finished. Its just a matter of time to get rid of the leftovers.

mreinman wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Dagger wrote:

mreinman wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Vmart wrote:Remember that Galloway was a vital part of what they did.

good point. Still don't understand why they have the green light to take all those shots.

It's weird to me that shooting threes and lob dunks are what's considered good basketball nowadays. Clyde calls the mid range game lost art and that's so true. Guys don't even converge on the basket on fast breaks anymore. Everyone pans out to spot up for the three.

because the 3 point line cause the mid range game to become extremely inefficient and most good systems have eliminated it.

I think a good way to look at the mid-ranged shot is as a anecessary evil to improve the quality and quantity of shot attempts from the more efficient areas of the court. The mid-range shot is more valuable in its ability to keep defenses honest that it is in raw efficiency. In other words, being labeled a "threat from mid-range" is just as important as actually making shots from that area.

the good teams are not really taking those shots anymore. we seem to be doing more and more of it both here and in the d-league

The last four NBA champs were teams that had balance from every area in the court. When you say midrange, that includes long twos and shors in the paint. Yeah, it makes sense to eliminate as many long twos as you can. If your just a step from the three point line, then you mind as well take the shot that's worth more. But NBA defenses aren't going to allow you to just camp out at the line. Players need the ability to pull up. Just look at what happened to Steve Novak when teams started adjusting to him. Our problem offensively is just talent. We have to settle for tough shots because we don't get enough transition buckets. It'd be a different case if we where Memphis and could just power our way to easy baskets. But Cole Aldrich doesn't get that kind of respect from defenses.

it depends if they have range. Parker and Duncan don't really shoot the 3 that well but modern players do. Have a look at Danny Greens shot chart:

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

FistOfOakley wrote:good offense is not about getting layups and 3s... it's about getting the shot you want... shot selection is part of it and 3s are better than long 2s but as defenses get tougher how many times down the court can you get the exact shot that you want?

alot of folks shoot below 50% by the rim when they are contested and a lot of folks shoot below 35% from 3... that leaves only a few subset of players who can accomplish what you are looking for... and most of them don't get that by themselves.. plays are run and have to be executed...

that's why guys like dirk, lamarcus and yes even our own melo are valuable... there is going to be a certain percentage of shots throughout a game that are going to be really tough to get a layup or an open 3 depending on what you are doing... these guys up your percentage on plays where you can't find the right shot... from a game theory perspective they make you defend all parts of the court especially during the playoffs when defenses get really tough....

LA has been killed in the media for taking too many inefficient shots. Melo too. Dirk can take it because of the rate he hits it at.

There is a reason why teams like Houston has eliminated this shot. Atlanta, Portland and SA only have the guys shooting them who just cant hit 3's.

Watch that Reno game (highest scoring team in the d-league by a mile). They don't take any midrange shots yet they can score at will and efficiently.

Check out what Fred Hoiberg is doing with Iowa State.

Unless they take away the arc, the (long) midrange shots are finished. Its just a matter of time to get rid of the leftovers.

I looked at what Fred Hoiberg is doing and it's been successful. But you know who won the NCAA last year? UCONN, a team that incorporated shots from the mid and long ranges. Houston is another interesting case, but let's see how they do in the playoffs before we go crazy. Portland had time to properly prepare for Houston in the post season last season and they were able to frustrate Harden, Howard and Parsons.

They won with a last second shot that could have gone either way.

Houston also made LA shoot his own team in the foot.

Iowa state is also doing this with not a single player that is projected to go higher than 85.