>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.

that makes perfect sense to me. but I would describe that problem as "shot selection" not "shooting midrange." if you're taking a ton of midrange, you're likely settling -- just shooting instead of exerting the energy to find a better shot. that's a decision making problem, not a problem with the shot imo, and if a team is shooting a ton of them, I'd say their offense isn't doing enough to get good looks. so anyway, I agree it's good that Harden shoots from the arc or from the key -- that's efficient. but I'd disagree with the idea that 3FGAs are inherently superior to midrange jumpers, never mind the percentage.

just like layups are clearly the ideal shot for every team, there can still be bad FGAs at the rim. it's decision making to me, not a simple percentage game.

and anecdotally -- I coulda told you that a guy like Channing Frye had 3-point range when he was in Portland. I saw him make those shots in warmups and I knew he'd have it in his bag if he wanted to use it. but I *knew* Nate McMillan would kill any PF that took a 3-point shot, and I always thought that was stupid (cuz I'd wager right now that Aldridge could be a 40%+ 3-point shooter from the corner if the Blazers had sets for him there). so PHX picks him up and finds value in a relatively low-value NBA player by using him to stretch opposing Cs -- GOOD! it was Nate McMillan's fault that Channing wasn't finding his calling as a player in the 1st place and dumb dogma like that needs to be taken to task in the NBA.

BUT

saying 3FGAs are always better than midrange is just as crazy.