those are the numbers. when every single field goal attempt by every player on every team is taking into account, it's clear that shots at the rim are most effective, followed by three pointers. and it's not by a little bit, either.

if you want to pretend could be some "outlier" team that effectively takes tons of midrange jumpers, you're not dealing in reality. they're lower-percentage, two-point shots that seldomly result in three-point plays, foul shots or o-rebounds. want to see a team that shot tons of midrange jumpers? look at philly last year. they shot less threes and foul shots than almost anybody, while being one of the worst in the league at offensive rebounding (despite being good at defensive rebounding). hmm, i wonder why they brought in bynum and an entire convoy of gunners.

>it doesn't mean 3FGAs are, by
>definition, more valuable than midrange jumpshots.

YES, BY DEFINITION, THEY ARE. THEY ARE WORTH THREE POINTS.

i'm not saying that midrange jumpers are valueless. being able to make them insures that the defense has to react (instead of simply sagging off guys like evan turner or rondo). but i'm saying that any player or team who takes tons of them will not be efficient for an array of reasons. and that statement is backed up by numbers from every shot taken in the NBA last year.