Question for all you metrics guys.

[Norm Peterson]

Seem to remember someone posting something last year to the effect that the least efficient shot in college basketball is the mid-range jumper.  Marginally higher percentage but 1 point fewer per make than the trey.  Is that right?

 

I saw a graphic in a game not too long ago that talked about attempts or makes at the three levels from points in the paint, 2-pointers outside the paint, and treys.  And it showed basically the vast majority of shots were treys and points in the paint.  Maybe 5% of the shots were in between.

 

Can anyone shed any light on this?

 

 

[Norm Peterson]

Also, is there any correlation between offensive efficiency and assists?

[Chuck Taylor]

I don't have any specific numbers for you, but would guess that 5% might be a tad low, it does point to the fact that 3s and in the paint are the way to go. As to whether efficiency and assists are related, teams that shoot 3s well tend to hit open guys with passes. Better looks = higher percentage of makes. Teams that shoot 3s off the dribble are not efficient and don't have as many assists.

 

One thing regarding the mid-range jumper: Regardless of efficiency, it is a counterpunch to defenses that push out on the perimeter. Good teams have guys who can hit it. Glynn seems good at them, very valuable commodity for a PG to avoid being predictable.

[Norm Peterson]

I don't have any specific numbers for you, but would guess that 5% might be a tad low, it does point to the fact that 3s and in the paint are the way to go. As to whether efficiency and assists are related, teams that shoot 3s well tend to hit open guys with passes. Better looks = higher percentage of makes. Teams that shoot 3s off the dribble are not efficient and don't have as many assists.

 

One thing regarding the mid-range jumper: Regardless of efficiency, it is a counterpunch to defenses that push out on the perimeter. Good teams have guys who can hit it. Glynn seems good at them, very valuable commodity for a PG to avoid being predictable.

The 5% figure was from that particular game.  And it was just a guess, on my part based on the numbers that flashed briefly on the screen.  Suffice it to say that the vast majority of shots were either inside the paint or beyond the arc.

[hhcmatt]

Seem to remember someone posting something last year to the effect that the least efficient shot in college basketball is the mid-range jumper.  Marginally higher percentage but 1 point fewer per make than the trey.  Is that right?

 

Yes. The further you're away from the basket, the less likely you are to make that shot, typically.

Your results may vary in real life...where you might choose between a wide open shot vs. trying to score against a 6'11" post player.

 

A 3pt shot is worth 1.5 more than a 2 point shot....thus a 33% 3pt shooter scores as effectively as a 50% 2 point shooter.

[basketballjones]

Norm,

For me it's more of a spacing thing. And you need to differentiate jumps shots - are we talking jump shots that came directly from the pass? Or are we talking rhythm jumpers based off of shot-fake or rip, and pulling up after a bounce or two?

Because the former kills your offense in my opinion. Shooting 2pt shots off the pass, in the 8-19ft range is just a bad shot and inefficient. And it means you have dudes standing in "no-mans land" killing spacing and bring defenders in the paint.

But if you can catch on the perimeter, and rip by a defender into your rhythm jumper - that's a good shot. That's a well practiced shot and expected from your teammates.

[hhcmatt]

Also, is there any correlation between offensive efficiency and assists?

 

Overall there is a positive correlation though is more of a indication of style than success.

 

Here is Miles efficiency vs. his assist % on baskets for his career.

 

In 2011-12 he was top 50 in offensive efficiency and bottom 50 in assist percentage

[hhcmatt]

Also, is there any correlation between offensive efficiency and assists?

 

Here is the data of efficiency vs assist percentage which shows a  sample correlation coefficient of .25 (via KenPom)

Thus, there is a positive correlation, but not a strong one.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Wow, Dimes, you the man.

 

Norm,
For me it's more of a spacing thing. And you need to differentiate jumps shots - are we talking jump shots that came directly from the pass? Or are we talking rhythm jumpers based off of shot-fake or rip, and pulling up after a bounce or two?

Because the former kills your offense in my opinion. Shooting 2pt shots off the pass, in the 8-19ft range is just a bad shot and inefficient. And it means you have dudes standing in "no-mans land" killing spacing and bring defenders in the paint.

But if you can catch on the perimeter, and rip by a defender into your rhythm jumper - that's a good shot. That's a well practiced shot and expected from your teammates.

I guess my inquiry was more directed at recruiting.

 

If mid-level offense tends to be inefficient compared to three-point offense or points in the paint, then you should want players who can either: 1) shoot threes really well; or 2) are able to get shots close in.  This could either be on dribble penetration or a post move by a post player.

 

Let's say a good mid-level percentage for a jump shooter is 45% and a good three-point percent is 38%.  You're way ahead shooting threes in that scenario.  Similarly, if a good percentage for a big man posting up or getting a dish inside is 55%, then, obviously, you're once again better off going inside than trying to hit mid-range jumpers.

 

From a recruiting perspective, then, you should want guys who can just bury the three and big men with some offensive skill.  Realizing the skilled big men are rare, how about snagging some guards who can bury the rock?

 

Right now, we have really no skilled bigs who can consistently produce points in the paint.  Ed Morrow is maybe an exception to that.  But he's not the traditional low-post, back-to-the-basket big.

 

So, without a traditional, back-to-the-basket skilled big who can get you some points in the paint, you probably want some guards who can just drain it, yeah?

 

Well ... we have ... a couple of 6-7 kids who are pretty good shooters.

 

And look at our roster for next year and who we're bringing in.

 

Some have said we need to use that last spot for a big man.  And I agree for the most part, but if you can't find a quality big, are we better off at least having a rock-solid shooter in the stable?

 

I posted this before on the Roby thread, but here it is again, the size distribution of next year's roster:

 

6-10, 235#

6-9, 225#

6-8, 210#

6-8, 205#  (****)

6-7, 225#  (****)

6-7, 220#  (R150)

6-7, 216#  (****)

6-7, 204#

6-4, 196#

6-3, 191#  (****)

6-2, 178#

6-0, 165#  (****)

 

We'll have 6 players between 6-7 and 6-8 in height, including both of our signed commits, but only 4 guards.  And, at least one of those guards we've already established is not a good shooter from deep.  Are we thinking Isaiah Roby is really a 6-8 shooting guard?

[hhcmatt]

Wow, Dimes, you the man.

 

Depends on whether or not you think I collated 14 years worth of data today. I forgot to attribute that to KenPom

[Dean Smith]

Norm,

For me it's more of a spacing thing. And you need to differentiate jumps shots - are we talking jump shots that came directly from the pass? Or are we talking rhythm jumpers based off of shot-fake or rip, and pulling up after a bounce or two?

Because the former kills your offense in my opinion. Shooting 2pt shots off the pass, in the 8-19ft range is just a bad shot and inefficient. And it means you have dudes standing in "no-mans land" killing spacing and bring defenders in the paint.

But if you can catch on the perimeter, and rip by a defender into your rhythm jumper - that's a good shot. That's a well practiced shot and expected from your teammates.

Don't you think it depends on whether the catch and shoot takes place to a stationary player or whether it is to a player cutting in on the move into an open area? I understand your issue with the first but I have not problem with the catch and shoot on the flash cut.

[Norm Peterson]

 

Norm,

For me it's more of a spacing thing. And you need to differentiate jumps shots - are we talking jump shots that came directly from the pass? Or are we talking rhythm jumpers based off of shot-fake or rip, and pulling up after a bounce or two?

Because the former kills your offense in my opinion. Shooting 2pt shots off the pass, in the 8-19ft range is just a bad shot and inefficient. And it means you have dudes standing in "no-mans land" killing spacing and bring defenders in the paint.

But if you can catch on the perimeter, and rip by a defender into your rhythm jumper - that's a good shot. That's a well practiced shot and expected from your teammates.

Don't you think it depends on whether the catch and shoot takes place to a stationary player or whether it is to a player cutting in on the move into an open area? I understand your issue with the first but I have not problem with the catch and shoot on the flash cut.

 

Yeah.  Dana Altman's teams used to practice that in pre-game instead of continuous lay-up drills.  Probably still do.  Instead of doing continuous layup drills, each player in succession would v-cut from the wing, flash to just inside the top of the key and catch and shoot.  They'd practice catching and shooting once from their right and then the next time through it was a pump fake and drive to the basket.  Then they'd repeat from the left.  I always thought that seemed a lot more productive than just doing layups at less than game speed in warmups.

[royalfan]

Wide open threes and layups(or dunks) should be what the offense is designed to get.  15-19 foot shots are extremely bad to take. 

[Fullbacksympathy]

It's a lost art, and usually separates a good college guard from an NBA level guard or forward.  Jordan, Nowitski, Kobe, Bird, RIP Hamilton, Bernard King, Maravich, West, etc...

 

The last player I can remember having a great midrange jumper was Tyronn Lue.  He could get a pull up elbow show almost any time he wanted it.  Strickland comes to mind as well.  Both NBA players.

 

I think we see it less and less because it takes a lot of talent to hit that shot, and it usually happens coming hard off a screen or taking someone off the dribble. 

[Dean Smith]

Wide open threes and layups(or dunks) should be what the offense is designed to get. 15-19 foot shots are extremely bad to take.

Yes those are the shots you want, but you need a plan B

[tcp]

midrange game is important for attacking the integrity of a defense at multiple levels.

 

the first is that it punishes teams that pack into the paint to deny interior point blank shots. after awhile, they have to extend, freeing up more post space for operation.

 

2d, for 3 pt shooters, mid range shots can buy you more space between your catch and the defender.

 

play some decent rec ball and you can see this for yourself (where most good players are midrange shooters)

 

I like mid range games because they exploit defensive seams. they also open up scoring options for players who have court value elsewhere but don't have the size or distance shot quality to help out with scoring. a lot more players need to develop this game because of those two factors alone. Just imagine our scoring challenged players if they had the 12-15 foot shot! It's also one of the easiest shots to learn and polish.

 

Like most metrics, there's a context to be understood. and I think to argue that median scoring for team A suffers when a mid range game is employed is a ludicrous argument. However, if a team can deploy all 3 kinds of scoring options, then yes, treys and bunnies are the way to go *for those teams*--and that's all the good this stat does. It's just not generalizable that I can see.