The story was written a few years ago when shot data was examined in the basketball analytics movement – midrange shots are low efficiency shots. So why are some teams going against the trend and increasing their frequency of midrange shots? For this analysis, a midrange shot is everything in between the paint and 3-point line. Over the last 5 years, the FG% for midrange shots remained constant at roughly 35.5% to 36%. Therefore, this shot has an expected point value of 0.71 - 0.72 points per shot. How does this value compare to alternative shot locations? During this same period, shots within a few feet of the basket were worth between 1.16 and 1.21 points per shot. Farther paint shots exhibit an expected points per shot value that is closer to the midrange shots than shots within a few feet of the rim. Three-point shooting percentages over the last 5 years have been between 34% and 35%, but the extra point for a 3 makes these shots highly efficient at 1.04 points per shot. It’s also worth noting that corner threes provide additional value. Corner 3s are made at a 2.7% higher clip than above the break 3s, giving them a value of roughly 1.12 points per shot. Some have suggested that midrange volume helps a team open up the perimeter to get better looks from three. DribbleHandoff conducted a statistical analysis using the last few years of NBA and NCAA data to test this theory. The results do not support the notion that shooting more midrange shots will increase a team’s three-point percentage. Even if there was an increase, it would likely not be large enough to offset the value lost from shooting more shots from midrange instead of threes or shots at the rim. Coaches know the math. The midrange is dying. The table below illustrates the decline of the midrange for both the NBA and college basketball. In fact, college basketball actually takes half of the amount of midrange shots as the NBA. As they should. The difference between a midrange shot and a three or shot at the rim is larger at the college basketball level than the NBA. Using data from the last 5 seasons, the midrange points per shot in the NBA is roughly .79 points per shot compared to college basketball’s .715 point per shot. Threes in the NBA are worth about 1.06 points per shot, while they are worth 1.04 in college basketball. Taking a midrange shot sacrifices at least .325 points per shot compared to alternative options, while it’s just .27 points per shot for the NBA. Context of specific possessions and team personnel can slightly dictate how a team will strategize their midrange shot selection, but, overall, coaches should study the team’s shooting the lowest percentage of midrange shots. The Houston Rockets, one of the NBA’s most analytically driven teams, have been shooting the lowest percentage of midrange shots for years. It’s helped propel them to the best offensive rating in the NBA over the last year and a half. Teams looking to completely transform their shot selection should study the changes made by Mike Budenholzer in his first season as the Bucks’ head coach. Last season, they were 3rd highest in percentage of shots from midrange. They are now 25th highest. Their offensive rating ranking jumped from 9th last year to 4th this season. College coaches remain at the forefront of the shot selection revolution. The table below shows the 5 teams with the lowest percentage of midrange shots this season. On the other end, Florida A&M and Kennesaw State are taking the highest percentage of shots from midrange by a large margin. What if Kennesaw State converted it’s 18% midrange shots to the D1 average of 6% and used the remaining 12% on 3s? Transforming their shot selection would result in more points per game even if they shot these 3s at the lowest 3P% of any team last season, 27.5%. If they shot them at the D1 average 3P% it would result in over a 2.3 point per game increase. An increase of 1-2 points per game is significant. Last season, 10% of games were decided by 2 points or less. This is also applicable at the player level. Charlie Brown are Markus Howard are two of the best shooters in college basketball. Brown is shooting a higher percentage from the field than Markus Howard. Yet, Howard has a higher effective field goal percentage (eFG%). The difference is in their shot selection. Brown shoots 14% of his shots from midrange compared to Howard’s 4%. There’s very little difference between these shooters, but Brown’s inefficient shot allocation will make it look like Howard is a better shooter. *Data through 1/13/18
The shot selection revolution is here, and the data suggests that the decline in midrange attempts will only continue.
4 Comments
8/12/2019 10:47:01 am
The NBA has completely transitioned into a new era of play. If you ask me, what suffered the most from this transition is the mid range game. In the past, most of the stars that played in the NBA valued having a mid range shot, however, it has completely lost its effectiveness as of today. The only things that matter now are the three point shot and scoring inside the paint. NBA players who focused on their mid range game are now heading on a decline.
Reply
1/20/2023 08:09:49 am
Enlighten individuals regarding something intriguing you have done or an excursion you have been on. Individuals can get your fundamental details from your profile. Utilize the initial space as a potential chance to show others what sort of individual you are. Show them what intrigues you personally.
Reply
9/22/2023 01:18:27 am
Showcase your brand's culture and values through your content to resonate with like-minded individuals.
Reply
10/12/2023 04:09:13 am
Dog vaccination campaigns in underserved areas can significantly improve overall canine health and reduce disease prevalence.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
Archives
January 2020
|