>you think i don't play basketball? OKAY DUDE (as if that
>typical jock huffiness isn't stupid as a bag of dildos
>anyway).
>
>you're not thinking of this in NBA terms. it's not just about
>pure FG%. three pointers count for three points, while two
>pointers only count for two. you can draw fouls and go to the
>line. offensive rebounds mean another possession.
It's basic. A 3 point shot is a longer distance, tougher shot to nail consistently. A 2 pointer is a shorter distance, easier shot. That's it. The % will drop on EITHER shot when the defense is on you, but to say a contested 3 is BETTER than a contested 2 is crazy.

>because of the RULES OF THE NBA, a contested 18-footer is not
>better than a contested three-pointer (if we're going to say
>any contested shot is a good one, outside of being in the
>paint). for any player who can make those shots at a decent
>clip, the difference in FG% between the two doesn't make up
>for the fact that one of them is WORTH MORE. so that's why
>threes are better.
A contested 3 pointer is probably the WORST shot you can take. The only shot you can take that is worse than that is a 2 pointer with a foot on the line. If you take a mid-range shot (12-17 ft.) even when contested, it's still a better shot. Ask ANY coach which shot they would rather take.

There's a LITANY of players that improved their mid-range or made a living off mid-range play. Richard Hamilton's mid range and his movement without the ball is stellar...are you gonna say those shots he takes throughout his career are BAD shots because he's not shooting three's? Kurt Thomas is the oldest dude in the NBA and he's still effective because he can hit a mid-range jumper.

>if you get to the basket, you can draw fouls, get a
>three-point play or get your own rebound at a much higher rate
>than if you took an 18-footer. so that's why shots around the
>basket are better.
It's easier to get to the basket if the defense has to respect the fact that you can hit a jumper from mid-range. They'll have to respect that, and you can draw all sorts of fouls, from reach-ins, to and one's from them hitting your hand/elbow/wrist on the follow through, to them having to respect you so much that it SETS up the drive. If you have handle, that's makes you even deadlier.

Even the best 3 point shooters shoot somewhere between 40-43% from 3, and those are usually snipers with WIDE open looks. I don't even think I can name a star player that could hit a decent % of CONTESTED 3 pointers

>these facts are why harden and manu, the two most efficient
>perimeter players in the NBA, almost never take midrange js.
>by the way, tony parker doesn't take threes, but has led the
>league in points in the paint before. here's his shots from
>last season.
The facts are that Harden and Manu are efficient because they usually aren't the focal point of the defense. ESPECIALLY with Harden, you would take your chances with him and guard him one-on-one than leave Kevin Durant. Manu has the luxury of playing with a HOF big man and a great scoring PG, so the defense can't double off him. He'll get to the paint because the defense has to stay home with other players.

If they were the #1 option on their respective teams, they would
A. Not nearly be as efficient
B. Wouldn't get to the basket nearly as easily

>http://vorped.com/bball/index.php/player/shotchart/1134-Tony-Parker/season/2011-2012-REG
>
>if you click the pts/shot tab, you'll find, much to your
>dismay, that parker does not, in fact, crush kill and destroy
>from midrange. he's far better when in the lane and not
>particularly dominant in the midrange at all. he's actually
>about as good as chris bosh.
>
>http://vorped.com/bball/index.php/player/shotchart/838-Chris-Bosh/season/2011-2012-REG
Nobody's saying that you don't want to ideally get to the rim. But you're arguing that because of statistics, the mid-range game is obsolete, and it's better for teams to have 3 pointers and slashers, and nobody that can hit a 15 footer. That's ridiculous