fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:again, mid range shots are ok if you can shoot them at a high percentage where it is considered efficient. Dirk, Wade, CP3, ... there are players who just shoot it well but most players don't shoot it at an efficient enough level.

Then how do you make a statement like "we shoot too many long 2s" ???? Whats the criteria? Because my point is simply the vast majority of the long 2's we take are good shots, unless you think in the situation I described in the orginal post does not equal a good shot.

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:again, mid range shots are ok if you can shoot them at a high percentage where it is considered efficient. Dirk, Wade, CP3, ... there are players who just shoot it well but most players don't shoot it at an efficient enough level.

Then how do you make a statement like "we shoot too many long 2s" ???? Whats the criteria? Because my point is simply the vast majority of the long 2's we take are good shots, unless you think in the situation I described in the orginal post does not equal a good shot.

The point is that very few players or teams are good at these shots. You rely way too heavily on your eyes IMHO.

10-16 footers - 37% (BAD!)

16-23 footers - 40% (BAD! but league avg.)

3 pointers - 34% (a touch below avg because we don't have enough good 3 point shooters but overall better than a 50% eFg)

Again, these shots sometimes need to be taken if the shot clock is expiring etc ... but a good offensive design should not have these in there as goto shots.

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Stephen Curry has a near perfect shot chart - just high value shots. That's mostly 3s and shots near the basket, although he has one mid range spot that he's good at. He doesn't have a high volume from there, though. I'm guessing he only shoots those when he's wide open. Fivethirtyeight.com has an article on the Warriors only shooting high value shots (which in most cases means only near the basket and 3s).
Curry's shot chart:

and Michael Jordan took very few 3's, TONS of long 2's and midrange jumpers and was the best player ever. Point?

GS also has the best collection of 3 point shooters in the NBA.

Bonn... Im not arguing the value of the 3 or being good at it. Im not even saying the long 2 is a good shot. If these guy's were pitchers the scouting report would surely say the long 2 is their weakest pitch. Does that mean you dont ever throw it? Does that mean every one is bad? No to both. Its a very important shot for several players, establishes spacing and yes.. is the least "valuable" shot. Not all long 2's are bad and how do you coach a good jumper shooter out of that shot? The best shot is the open one. Stats based on volume are not practical to dictate every situation.

No one said you never shoot mid range shots. Jordan played in a different era - one where both he and his opponents didn't have this info. from the metrics experts. So everyone was taking more of these low percentage shots, and the team that was the best at them still had an advantage.
Do you think Curry should be shooting more mid range in order to establish spacing? If your theory is right shouldn't this lack of spacing be hurting his team?

Just to add a little more:
1) Obviously when the shot clock is about to expire, you take whatever you can get even if it's mid-range.
2) I haven't seen mid-range shooting percentages listed separately for players depending on whether they're open or closely guarded. (Maybe teams have this info., though.) I suspect a decent number of players get good value out of open mid-range shots.

Curry is a terrible example. Its like me using Shaq as an example of why bigs shouldnt shoot 3s. Curry is the best shooter in possibly the history of the game. Can we use a better example?

And your #2 point was really the premiss of this thread. That you can end up with a good amount of longs 2's and in the context of the game they are good shots. However that goes out the window when folks make blanket statements like "we take too many long 2s" or "the long 2 isnt a good shot"

how about Dray? Its about philosophy not the player.

So... do you watch basketball? Do you not understand this shot chart? All his touches come around the basket. If they dont his role is as a spot up shooter. Why would he set up for a long 2? Again, this has nothing to do a) this discussion or b) your philosophy. Again do you watch or just surf the numbers? Green is not an offensive player. He has a below average jump shot and I can guarentee you that the ONLY long jumper he practices is the 3. Who sets up for long 2s? Its not even about the shot, its about the floor spacing. You set up behind the arc for passing as much as shooting. Draymond isnt a facilitor... he's camping out behind the arc to get the hell out of the way. He hits some, and missing tons more. If you defending GS I want Draymond shooting 3's at a JR pace.

yes I watch basketball (GEEEZ) probably more than anybody here.

You have no idea what the fuk you are talking about ... seriously!

Please watch Dray play before you make horrendously silly posts like this. The dude is practically the PG on that team.

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:again, mid range shots are ok if you can shoot them at a high percentage where it is considered efficient. Dirk, Wade, CP3, ... there are players who just shoot it well but most players don't shoot it at an efficient enough level.

Then how do you make a statement like "we shoot too many long 2s" ???? Whats the criteria? Because my point is simply the vast majority of the long 2's we take are good shots, unless you think in the situation I described in the orginal post does not equal a good shot.

The point is that very few players or teams are good at these shots. You rely way too heavily on your eyes IMHO.

10-16 footers - 37% (BAD!)

16-23 footers - 40% (BAD! but league avg.)

3 pointers - 34% (a touch below avg because we don't have enough good 3 point shooters but overall better than a 50% eFg)

Again, these shots sometimes need to be taken if the shot clock is expiring etc ... but a good offensive design should not have these in there as goto shots.

So again... are you saying we have a philosophy problem and the analytics prove that? Too many long range 2's that at a low %? I would say look at the games... these are good shots that these players usually make. When KP hits the 15-18 footer with the same ease that Ewing did he will be scoring 25-28ppg on 52% FGs or more. At 7'3 it will be easy. Confidence, experience... should that not be a part of his arsenal?

Melo's long 2's are usually pretty bad, but thats because he hits enough to convince himself they are OK. Like that deep contested 3 vs. the Rockets late when you are like NO NO NO YES. But the other guys (and Melo periodically) are getting very good looks and just not hitting. KP doesnt have past FG%s to back it up but Melo is well below career averages and this is an offense that frees you up jumpers.

Rip Hamilton. Devatstating off the curl from 12-15 feet. Allan Houston was another guy that punished you for running off the 3 by taking two steps and making it look like he was shooting FTs in mom's driveway. If you have players (like the Spurs have over the years) this will be a big part of the offense and its GOOD BASKETBALL because those are good shots. When you have a bunch of small guys that can shoot you spread it and bomb. This is not new. 3 and D players are getting sick money!

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Stephen Curry has a near perfect shot chart - just high value shots. That's mostly 3s and shots near the basket, although he has one mid range spot that he's good at. He doesn't have a high volume from there, though. I'm guessing he only shoots those when he's wide open. Fivethirtyeight.com has an article on the Warriors only shooting high value shots (which in most cases means only near the basket and 3s).
Curry's shot chart:

and Michael Jordan took very few 3's, TONS of long 2's and midrange jumpers and was the best player ever. Point?

GS also has the best collection of 3 point shooters in the NBA.

Bonn... Im not arguing the value of the 3 or being good at it. Im not even saying the long 2 is a good shot. If these guy's were pitchers the scouting report would surely say the long 2 is their weakest pitch. Does that mean you dont ever throw it? Does that mean every one is bad? No to both. Its a very important shot for several players, establishes spacing and yes.. is the least "valuable" shot. Not all long 2's are bad and how do you coach a good jumper shooter out of that shot? The best shot is the open one. Stats based on volume are not practical to dictate every situation.

No one said you never shoot mid range shots. Jordan played in a different era - one where both he and his opponents didn't have this info. from the metrics experts. So everyone was taking more of these low percentage shots, and the team that was the best at them still had an advantage.
Do you think Curry should be shooting more mid range in order to establish spacing? If your theory is right shouldn't this lack of spacing be hurting his team?

Just to add a little more:
1) Obviously when the shot clock is about to expire, you take whatever you can get even if it's mid-range.
2) I haven't seen mid-range shooting percentages listed separately for players depending on whether they're open or closely guarded. (Maybe teams have this info., though.) I suspect a decent number of players get good value out of open mid-range shots.

Curry is a terrible example. Its like me using Shaq as an example of why bigs shouldnt shoot 3s. Curry is the best shooter in possibly the history of the game. Can we use a better example?

And your #2 point was really the premiss of this thread. That you can end up with a good amount of longs 2's and in the context of the game they are good shots. However that goes out the window when folks make blanket statements like "we take too many long 2s" or "the long 2 isnt a good shot"

how about Dray? Its about philosophy not the player.

So... do you watch basketball? Do you not understand this shot chart? All his touches come around the basket. If they dont his role is as a spot up shooter. Why would he set up for a long 2? Again, this has nothing to do a) this discussion or b) your philosophy. Again do you watch or just surf the numbers? Green is not an offensive player. He has a below average jump shot and I can guarentee you that the ONLY long jumper he practices is the 3. Who sets up for long 2s? Its not even about the shot, its about the floor spacing. You set up behind the arc for passing as much as shooting. Draymond isnt a facilitor... he's camping out behind the arc to get the hell out of the way. He hits some, and missing tons more. If you defending GS I want Draymond shooting 3's at a JR pace.

yes I watch basketball (GEEEZ) probably more than anybody here.

You have no idea what the fuk you are talking about ... seriously!

Please watch Dray play before you make horrendously silly posts like this. The dude is practically the PG on that team.

he's the rotation guy! He's the 2nd to last person to swing the ball. Now Im thinking you actually dont watch. He's like Ben Wallace. Gets assists because he's the swing guy. Green is not a handler. I would assume his usage% backs that up.

Anywho Im glad you agree the long 2 is a valuable shot and a worthy portion of the offense, especially considering the personel.

Great job helping me kill a BS day at work. Cheers!

Holy sh1t

I will just assume that you are having a terrible day and/or you had waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much to drink last night LMAO

Everyone has a bad day that turns their brain into poop

Green's importance to Golden State's success is nothing new — he signed an $82 million contract in the summer, after all. However, while Klay Thompson has struggled to find his groove in the opening 16 games of the season, Green has taken his game to new heights by becoming the team's primary facilitator. In comparison to last season, Curry has seen his usage rate increase and his assist percentage decrease, while Green's has done the exact opposite .

You clearly have not watched him play. Hilarious that you would call others out for this.