Analytics Nerds watching CP3 and Booker destroy Denver with the Mid-Range

[tremonthustler1]

Agreed. It’s a balance. I just feel like these stat geeks get so caught up on efficiency and analyzing numbers they forget there’s a defense on the other side, they not gonna keep letting you shoot threes and get easy dunks.

If your team plays five out, someone will be open from outside.

Analytics doesn't hate the mid range shot, it hates contested midranges.

The other thing is, Pheonix is hitting from 3 at a clip of about 45% for the series. So....

The Coli loves the contested mid range shots because it highlights how on fire you are. This site loves mindless hoops (by that I mean the player isn't thinking; he's just reacting off instinct). If you're making contested shots anywhere on the floor over double teams, nobody can stop you and we grew up on players being immortalized on being able to make those kind of shots all the time.

 

[feelosofer]

If your team plays five out, someone will be open from outside.


The Coli loves the contested mid range shots because it highlights how on fire you are. This site loves mindless hoops (by that I mean the player isn't thinking; he's just reacting off instinct). If you're making contested shots anywhere on the floor over double teams, nobody can stop you and we grew up on players being immortalized on being able to make those kind of shots all the time.

Exactly, my whole thing is analytics and the the basketball of old aren't even in opposition of each other like that. Yes teams take and make more 3's but defense still matters and the funny thing is all of the best basketball players of today have excellent mid-range games still.

 

[Cynical Thoughts]

Y’all flip flopping around like crazy now.

I don’t remember no one heralding deadly mid range shooters when analytics haters was coming for y’all’s necks. Now all of a sudden the analytics only loves their mid range. I’m calling bull shyt.

The theme of this thread seems to be, don’t shoot the mid if you are bad at it. No shyt.

Did we need an analytics revolution to tell people that bad mid range shooters shouldn’t shoot mid range shots?

that definitely lends some credence to the analytics is crowd.

 

[Cynical Thoughts]

This.

Dumbasses don't even know what analytics is, analytics loves the CP3 midrange shot cause he fukking makes them.

Analytics is all about players taking the shots for them that will yield the most points. For CP3 he absolutely should be nailing those midrange jumpers, he's one of the GOATs from that range.

Wasn’t you down playing Booker and CP3s mid range game a week or 2 ago?

I remember asking you specifically about the mid range locations cause it sounded like you was downplaying it when it was a winning formula.

Now you all in on CP3 the mid range gawd.

Spooky

 

[Rekkapryde]

Bad shots are nikkaz who cant shoot 3s continuing to jack them up.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Wasn’t you down playing Booker and CP3s mid range game a week or 2 ago?

I remember asking you specifically about the mid range locations cause it sounded like you was downplaying it when it was a winning formula.

Now you all in on CP3 the mid range gawd.

Spooky

Why you just making shyt up?

I have never said that CP3 shouldn't shoot midrange, he's one of the GOAT midrange shooters of all time.

The only conversation I remember having about Booker shooting midrange was when someone claimed that Booker's game in one win was anti-analytics cause he hit some midrange, and I pointed out that that was bullshyt, Booker's game was perfect analytics cause he took a lot of threes and a lot of shots in the key and only shot the makeable midrange shots that he can hit at a high %.

And in fact you see the SAME thing in last night's game. Booker only shot 1-4 on midrange shots over 15 feet. But he was 6-10 on midrange shots inside 15 feet. So long as he stuck to that close-range midrange jumper, which he makes at a high %, he was playing the analytics game very effectively.

 

[reserved_one]

It really dawned on me last night at how great Chris Paul’s jumper really is…his shooting motion is a thing a beauty so smooth.

 

[Cynical Thoughts]

Wasn’t you down playing Booker and CP3s mid range game a week or 2 ago?

I remember asking you specifically about the mid range locations cause it sounded like you was downplaying it when it was a winning formula.

Now you all in on CP3 the mid range gawd.

Spooky

Why you just making shyt up?

I have never said that CP3 shouldn't shoot midrange, he's one of the GOAT midrange shooters of all time.

The only conversation I remember having about Booker shooting midrange was when someone claimed that Booker's game in one win was anti-analytics cause he hit some midrange, and I pointed out that that was bullshyt, Booker's game was perfect analytics cause he took a lot of threes and a lot of shots in the key and only shot the makeable midrange shots that he can hit at a high %.

And in fact you see the SAME thing in last night's game. Booker only shot 1-4 on midrange shots over 15 feet. But he was 6-10 on midrange shots inside 15 feet. So long as he stuck to that close-range midrange jumper, which he makes at a high %, he was playing the analytics game very effectively.

Straw man. I never said you did but you posted it like I did say that. Smh

Point is, CP3 been playing like this his whole career and to my knowledge no body was championing him till now.

I was fully ready for your “receipts” but you spent the rest of the post attacking your straw man.

you slick as hell and on that bullshyt early so ima let you cook.



“close range mid-range jumper” has entered the fray brehs beware

This is getting good.

 

[Amare's Right Hook]

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Straw man. I never said you did but you posted it like I did say that. Smh

Point is, CP3 been playing like this his whole career and to my knowledge no body was championing him till now.

I was fully ready for your “receipts” but you spent the rest of the post attacking your straw man.

you slick as hell and on that bullshyt early so ima let you cook.

Again, complete bullshyt. There are plenty receipts that I've been big-upping CP3's midrange game for years.

For instance, this is just from 2019:

Midrange two is a fine shot if you can hit them. If you're CP3, KD, Dirk, then you can eat teams up shooting those.

If you're a point guard have to be at CP3 or Steve Nash range, shooting damn near 50% from midrange, for that to be helping your team on a regular basis

He's one of the best midrange shooters ever.

Actual guys who are good from midrange: Durant, Irving, Curry, Lillard, Bosh, Ibaka, CP3, Pau Gasol, Carmelo and Klay.

But yes, if you're not shooting them at the sort of efficiency that CP3 and Dirk were capable of (or KD, or Bosh, or Steph, or LMA) then it shouldn't be a dominant shot in your game. No one should be taking a 40% two-pointer and making it the focus of their offense, you need to aim higher than that.

That's a weird accusation because CP3 has always scored at high efficiency, doesn't take many shots, and sets up his teammates a ton. He's one of the best guards in history at the midrange j, shouldn't he try to get those?

Analytics says the midrange two is good if you take the ones that you can hit at a high %, or if you only take them when they're the best shot available. Midrange is bad when you hit them at a low % or when you pass up an equally good 3pt to take one. That's all.

“close range mid-range jumper” has entered the fray brehs beware

This is getting good.

If you think that's new shyt then you're completely ignorant about the topic. Highlighting very specific portions of the floor that a player excels at is one of the BIGGEST outcomes of analytics. That's been there since the very beginning. Even the regular box score guys like Basketball Reference are separating out 3-10 foot shots and 10-16 foot shots from the long 16-23 foot midrange shots. You serious not knowing this shyt?


For example, in the last three years Booker is hitting 47% from 3-10 feet, 51% from 10-16 feet, and 43.5% from 16-23 feet. As a result he's taking 14% of his shots from 3-10 feet, 21% of his shots from 10-16 feet, and just 12.5% of his shots from 16-23 feet. That's a big change from his first two seasons when he was only taking 10-15% of his shots from 10-16 feet and 22-23% of his shots from 16-23 feet.

That's why Booker has gone from hitting just 46% of his 2pt shots his rookie year to now hitting 54% of his 2pt shots, even though his 3pt% hasn't changed at all in that span (tho now he has higher 3pt volume). That's the POINT of analytics. You tailor your game to focus on the very best shots available.

 

[SchoolboyC]

Y’all flip flopping around like crazy now.

I don’t remember no one heralding deadly mid range shooters when analytics haters was coming for y’all’s necks. Now all of a sudden the analytics only loves their mid range. I’m calling bull shyt.

The theme of this thread seems to be, don’t shoot the mid if you are bad at it. No shyt.

Did we need an analytics revolution to tell people that bad mid range shooters shouldn’t shoot mid range shots?

that definitely lends some credence to the analytics is crowd.

The concept is essentially just playing the percentages to maximize efficiency. Over a large sample size, a 50% mid-range shooter is the equivalent to a 33% 3pt-shooter. Majority of the league is clearing 33% from 3. There’s about 10-15 players max that can hit the middy at a 50% or greater clip. Chris Paul is one of them.

15-20 years ago, ~35-40% of a teams offense came from the mid-range and ~15-20% from 3. Folks did the math and realized that it would be more efficient if some of those mid-range attempts, especially the deep ones where players are only 1-2 steps inside the lines, were 3-point attempts. All we’re seeing today is that those numbers have swapped places. Having some type of mid-range game is a necessity, and it should always have a place in basketball. But that doesn’t mean it absolutely has to be as emphasized as it once was.

Now, are there certain people that weaponize analytics to push agendas? Of course. But people will do that with anything. If an owner wants a white GM and coach they’ll find any excuse to do so, analytics or not. And people will cherry-pick whatever they can to devalue players they don’t like or to uplift those they do, we’ve been seeing that for ages across all mediums for ages.

 

[MooseMouthMthafuga]

Ayton his rookie year shot 38% from midrange. I wouldn't call that "automatic". How often do you want your 6'11" big taking a 2pt shot that he can't even hit at a 40% clip? Your team should be able to get a better shot than that. Every time Ayton shoots a midrange it's pulling him away from the hoop AND you're getting a shytty efficiency.

Compare that to CP3, who shot 53% from midrange this year. You don't mind your PG taking that shyt at all when he's hitting at that rate plus you still have your big down low to fight for the offensive board.

He was a rook, but he showed a proficiency from mid range that a lot of big men lack.It was a shot he was comfortable taking.Smooth motion.I think it could've potentially became a weapon for him to create space if he ever improved his handle in the face up.



Maybe I should've said there were games where he was automatic from mid range.I'm surprised he was only hitting at a 38% clip.Even when he was at Arizona, I thought he had the best mid range J I've seen from a Center prospect in a while.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

He was a rook, but he showed a proficiency from mid range that a lot of big men lack.It was a shot he was comfortable taking.Smooth motion.I think it could've potentially became a weapon for him to create space if he ever improved his handle in the face up.



Maybe I should've said there were games where he was automatic from mid range.I'm surprised he was only hitting at a 38% clip.Even when he was at Arizona, I thought he had the best mid range J I've seen from a Center prospect in a while.

That's fair. He was good enough from midrange to show that he had some skill there, but not good enough to be helping his team when he took it. It's quite possible that he's still working to develop the shot in practice but isn't going to take it at a high rate in games until he improves his %.

 

[Cynical Thoughts]

Again, complete bullshyt. There are plenty receipts that I've been big-upping CP3's midrange game for years.

For instance, this is just from 2019:








Analytics says the midrange two is good if you take the ones that you can hit at a high %, or if you only take them when they're the best shot available. Midrange is bad when you hit them at a low % or when you pass up an equally good 3pt to take one. That's all.





If you think that's new shyt then you're completely ignorant about the topic. Highlighting very specific portions of the floor that a player excels at is one of the BIGGEST outcomes of analytics. That's been there since the very beginning. Even the regular box score guys like Basketball Reference are separating out 3-10 foot shots and 10-16 foot shots from the long 16-23 foot midrange shots. You serious not knowing this shyt?


For example, in the last three years Booker is hitting 47% from 3-10 feet, 51% from 10-16 feet, and 43.5% from 16-23 feet. As a result he's taking 14% of his shots from 3-10 feet, 21% of his shots from 10-16 feet, and just 12.5% of his shots from 16-23 feet. That's a big change from his first two seasons when he was only taking 10-15% of his shots from 10-16 feet and 22-23% of his shots from 16-23 feet.

That's why Booker has gone from hitting just 46% of his 2pt shots his rookie year to now hitting 54% of his 2pt shots, even though his 3pt% hasn't changed at all in that span (tho now he has higher 3pt volume). That's the POINT of analytics. You tailor your game to focus on the very best shots available.

I don’t remember people championing CP3 as the goat like you are doing.

it was the game against the Lakers that I was referencing the receipts. Which lead me to ask where the hell is the mid range actually located.

So and so does the most damage in this area so let’s put him there more often. You need someone to tell you that?

This “close range mid range”shot is moving the goal posts, you’ll just add some caveat when the mid range is successful.

Maybe you are honestly coming from a good place but the more you explain this the more it looks suspect.

this is mid range

 

[Professor Emeritus]

So and so does the most damage in this area so let’s put him there more often. You need someone to tell you that?

You can't simultaneously claim the analytics guys aren't saying anything new and then claim they've changed the game. Like I just pointed out, Booker has CLEARLY changed his game since his first two seasons. Rookie season he shot 10% of his shots 10-16 and 22% of his shots 16-23. Four years later he's shooting 21% of his shots 10-16 and just 11% of his shots 16-23. He more than doubled the shorter midrange while cutting his long midrange in half. That's what analytics does.

And it's much more fine-tuned than that too. They're likely zeroing in even on exact spots of the floor for him, like they do for many players. Again, if it wasn't changing how players play then you wouldn't have anything to complain about.

Which lead me to ask where the hell is the mid range actually located.

This “close range mid range”shot is moving the goal posts, you’ll just add some caveat when the mid range is successful.

You're trying to make a meaningless argument on semantics. I don't care what the fukk you call the shot, the point is that he's reducing the less-successful shots and taking the more-successful shots, which is what EVERY player should do, which is all analytics is telling you to do. Who cares what you call the shot?

This is Booker's shot chart from last night:

Notice how tight those makes are. He wasn't hitting threes well last night (still got 6 points on 8 shots tho, same as going 3-8 midrange which is a normal night), but he still helped his team cause he was nailing those jumpers in the 5-15 foot range, a very nice area for him where he shoots 50%. He was 8-12 in the key, 16 points on 12 shots. How'd he do in the 16-23 foot range? Not good at all, just 1-4 (2 points on 4 shots), but it didn't hurt his team cause he didn't shoot many of them.




How about the Lakers game?

Notice very similar shot selection. Once again he shoots a ton of threes, only this night he's on so he gets 24 points off just 10 shots (literally could never happen on long midrange). Once again he's efficient inside the key, going 4-7 there. He's better on the long midrange on this night, going 3-5 (6 points on 5 shots) instead of 1-4, but either way it's a limited part of his game. He knows he ain't gonna shoot 60% from there on a regular basis when he's usually closer to 42% from that range, there's little to gain from shooting more of those and a lot to lose.



What works best for Booker isn't what works best for everyone. Each player has individual tendencies. But one of many things that analytics changed is that it showed that a LOT of players around the league were settling for those long 2s too many times, and they were better off either stopping an extra step back and going for 3pt, or working inside for a better shot.