There have been a lot of theories offered about why the mid-range shot is a lost art. One theory is that players are spending more time working on the long range, while disregarding their mid-range. What do u guys think about this? Statistically, there is definitely a correlation between higher 3pt% and lower 2pt %: Season <font color="White">..</font>2pt % <font color="White">..</font>3pt % 79-80 ...48.8% ...28.0% 80-81 ...49.1% ...24.5% 81-82 ...49.7% ...26.2% 82-83 ...49.2% ...23.8% 83-84 ...49.4% ...25.2% 84-85 ...49.9% ...27.4% 85-86 ...49.5% ...28.2% 86-87 ...49.0% ...30.1% 87-88 ...49.0% ...31.6% 88-89 ...49.0% ...32.3% 89-90 ...48.8% ...33.1% 90-91 ...48.8% ...32.0% 91-92 ...48.6% ...33.1% 92-93 ...48.9% ...33.6% 93-94 ...48.3% ...33.3% 94-95 ...49.1% ...35.9% *The 3pt line was moved closer for these two seasons 95-96 ...48.6% ...36.7% * 96-97 ...48.0% ...36.0% 97-98 ...47.0% ...34.6% 98-99 ...45.7% ...33.9% 99-00 ...46.8% ...35.3% 00-01 ...46.1% ...35.4% 01-02 ...46.5% ...35.4% 02-03 ...46.3% ...34.9% As you can see, the 3pt% and the 2pt % have an inverse relationship. As the league gets better from long range, their 2pt shooting percentage decreases
I like the two point shot more, players like Rip Hamilton stick with the basics, the mid range game. You shoot a higher Percentage from the two, and it doesnt hurt your team as much if you miss them. 3 pointers can make or break your team for hte night, if you are cold and continue shooting them, you hurt your team.
But if you look at a player's total percentages, if they can shoot three's well, their FG% might be a little lower, but that extra point they get for making the three's will make them score just as much as a guy who hits all 2's. eg: One guy shoots 7-16 FG and 2-5 3PT Another guys shoots 8-16 FG and 0-0 3PT One shoots 44% and the other 50%, but they both score 16 points. Sometimes it just depends on the players, but players should work on both.
Yeah, maybe thats why Kobe doen't like to shoot much threes. ALl Kobe does is he either passes it from the three point range of he drives in. Sometimes he pumpfakes and shoot from about 15 feet. Maybe when they get used to shooting the strength from 3 point range that when they shoot from midrange they shoot the same strength as the three point, and they end up shooting harder. Or just maybe the defender always leave the player open be the the three point line so that they just shoot it. =p.
I'd have to say I agree with both if neither. What simply matters is points, simply scoring. Sure 2 pointers are mid range and in the post and in the paint are usually easier and faster. However 3 pointers are more and probably drop opponent morale more seeing as it's such an effective dagger on their minds. However if I were to have to choose, 2 pointers for sure, more successful, easier, virtually anyone on your team can do it and has the chance.
I enjoy watching the midrange game moreso than threes and dunks. Barkley working the baseline turnaround jumper, KJ working the pull up jumper... it seems like 10 years ago was a little more balanced that way. I think Rip is a good example of a fun game to watch that way.
Nowadays, every where you go, players either take it inside or shoot the three. If you're ever just shooting around with people, 9/10 times, they will shoot from the 3pt line. In the game, same thing. The mindset of a person like that is probably, why shoot the midrange for 2, when I can step back a foot or two and get 3? And then, if I want to get 2, why not just go for a layup? Basically, that's how it is now.
2 point shots may be more successful and more accurate and what not, but, the 3 point shot can really shift momentum. It can also get you closer a little faster than a 2 point shot. But, than the downside of it is, if you continue to shoot em and miss, you have a possibility to be diggin yourself a deeper and deeper defecit. So, there are pros and cons to each.
There are a lot of players today who attempt the 3-point shot and shouldn't be. Players like Richard Hamilton keep the mid-range game alive. Think of it, why would you shoot the three when you can attempt a higher percentage shot?
Players like Peja, Reggie, etcetera should only be taking three point shots, because it is basically a lay-up to them. The other players should only be taking mid-range shots for safety, and three point shots if they believe it's going in.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Magic Johnson:</div><div class="quote_post">I'd have to say I agree with both if neither. What simply matters is points, simply scoring. Sure 2 pointers are mid range and in the post and in the paint are usually easier and faster. However 3 pointers are more and probably drop opponent morale more seeing as it's such an effective dagger on their minds. However if I were to have to choose, 2 pointers for sure, more successful, easier, virtually anyone on your team can do it and has the chance.</div> This post confuses me. Contradiction in effect. Anyways,my own personal opinion is that the meat of a teams attack should be the higher percentage shots. Doing something you know you can make the majority of the time. I liken it to a boxing match. One boxer is always swingin' for the knockout. For the most part he swings and misses and leaves himself open and gets himself KO'd. The other boxer keeps a continuous attack. Nothing extravagent just a consistent pressuring attack. 99% of the time the boxer who has the most consistent attack and pressure will prevail. Same goes for the basketball court. The team that relies on the consistent higher percentage field goals will win the vast majority of the time.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Dre:</div><div class="quote_post">This post confuses me. Contradiction in effect. </div> lol sorry Chukk :mrgreen: was a bit too complicated again. What I meant to say in much simpler terms is. I don't care, scoring is scoring to me, whatever wins the game. Although if I had to choose, it'd be mid-range simply because it's much easier to score from there consistently.
who are some people's favorite mid-range games, past or present? I stated mine in my earlier post, myself. Obviously we all respect Hamilton's
Is the NBA's 3 point line as far as it ever was from the basket today? Is the Internation 3 point line further away? They should move it back if it is and should at least consider moving it even further away if it isn't, that would encourage more mid range shooting. Jordan-favorite...
