Welcome to 2014!

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2014_ratings.html

The Portland Trail Blazers are leading in points per game (108.3) and points per 100 possessions (114.06). Their leading scorer is also the most active midrange player in the league by a fairly wide margin. From a recent Kirk Goldsberry article* regarding the Blazers' offensive effectiveness:

"So far this season, Aldridge has taken 339 midrange shots — repeatedly violating one of the key tenets of Morey’s efficiency-minded stratagem. As a team, Morey’s Rockets have tried only 292.

This midrange fascination is not new. Last season, Aldridge attempted 795 midrange shots, by far the most in the league (DeMar DeRozan was second with 628)."

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2013/1218/grant_r_lamarcus-aldridge_mb_1152x830.jpg

Isn't this exactly what the analytics minded people decided is the worst way to structure an offense? Midrange shots are the worst shot in basketball, it's simple math they said. But here we are, at the dawning of a new year, and by every available measure -- advanced and otherwise -- the NBA's #1 offense is structured around the highest volume midrange shooter in the league.

Thoughts? Suggestions? How could such a thing happen when science had already solved the midrange riddle and decreed it dead?



*http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/86478/courtvision-rip-city-bravado

Because you know, the midrange game is stupid

Everybody been known that

It's a great shot for a lot of players. Bernard King, for instance, wore that shit out.

.

Imagine the guy with the game's best midrange jumper getting to play with a PG like lillard


That offense would be deadly

>Imagine the guy with the game's best midrange jumper getting
>to play with a PG like lillard
>
>
>That offense would be deadly
>


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

or overly du jour because at almost any point last season people would have averred knicks>blazers, who struggled most of the year.

http://oi48.tinypic.com/2j5ylad.jpg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<---- 5....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlgiritpmfo

=======================================

Ditch the paper, save the trees, and go mobile! Text bizcard to 32462!

That makes sense. Anyway, argument from anecdote is the simple answer. That Aldridge is an outlier isn't just possible, it's pretty fucking obvious.

But do you.

or did you skip the part where he said that Aldridge is really just re-creating the role Dirk Nowitzki played as part of the highly successful Mavs? or do I need to link to the Goldsberry article where he notes that Bosh's role in the #2 NBA offense for the champion Miami Heat is to be a jump-shooting big man from midrange, too?

Aldridge's effectiveness from midrange is squarely average, too. the only real "outlier" aspect of his performance is how many he takes and the fact that he's a big that shoots them that effectively.

and I'm not shitting on analytics. I'm merely pointing out some interesting things I think they've uncovered. (the better defense against Portland's performance isn't to cry "outlier," it's to point out the three-point shooting highlighted in that article as well).

> the only real "outlier" aspect of his performance is how
>many he takes and the fact that he's a big that shoots them
>that effectively.

You named two other all-star bigs in Dirk and Bosh as well who shoot from the mid-range effectively enough to demand a rotation....I don't consider either to be the norm.

>You named two other all-star bigs in Dirk and Bosh as well who
>shoot from the mid-range effectively enough to demand a
>rotation....I don't consider either to be the norm.

their use of midrange actually helps their team offense be some of the elite team offenses in the league. so perhaps we should re-examine such conclusions as "midrange is the worst shot in basketball." clearly there are models of success where midrange remains both efficient and vital to team offensive success.

The problem is there simply aren't that many good mid-range shooters...not efficient enough to justify putting them in a role where mid-range game is their primary.

There are a handful of players who fit the 7 ft, effective mid-range role and it's no surprise that each of them is a superstar player.

especially considering a jumpshot is one of the most teachable tools for pros (not all pros, but clearly a large # of NBA players improve their shot over their career), shouldn't more teams take offensively limited bigs and encourage them to space offensively via an effective midrange shot? OKC has the #5 offense in the NBA, despite playing Kendrick Perkins too many minutes and presumably having no real offensive stars outside of KD and Russ.

so yeah, I think advanced data seems to say that a big effective at the midrange is a positive, not a negative, and despite the simple "midrange is the worst shot" mantra pumped by early analytics, teams should be LOOKING to incorporate the midrange in their offense.

Is that the norm? Just because he'a recreating a role doesn't mean that he isn't an outlier. How many bigs, at their size, can effectively fill that Dirk role at a relatively equivalent level?

>Is that the norm? Just because he'a recreating a role doesn't
>mean that he isn't an outlier. How many bigs, at their size,
>can effectively fill that Dirk role at a relatively equivalent
>level?

"Jump-shooting big man" has been a slur used against "LaMarsha" Aldridge for most of his career, yet here he is flogging the midrange like nobody else at the heart of the league's best offense. NBA is a copycat league, shouldn't teams be trying to copy what the Blazers are doing?

Its an outlier because it doesn't fit an arbitrary
made up physics of efficient offense?

LOL-

Some teams win the X way. Some teams win the Y way.

You can't say the X way is the way, and the Y way is
the outlier.

Jesus fucking christ, lol

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

this is the offensive top 10 by points per 100 possessions:

1 - Portland Trail Blazers (Aldridge)
2 - Miami Heat (Bosh)
3 - Houston Rockets
4 - San Antonio Spurs (Duncan)
5 - OKC Thunder (Ibaka)
6 - Dallas Mavericks (Nowitzki)
7 - New Orleans Pelicans
8 - Minnesota Timberwolves (Love)
9 - Phoenix Suns
10 - Los Angeles Clippers

There's a reason every single one of them is a superstar.

Anyone with an effective mid-range game is a better player. It's why John Wall is so much more dangerous now. It's why Rip Hamilton had such a long career. It's why Lebron is light years more dangerous now. It's why Melo and Durant are such tough covers. It's the reason why a cat like Jared Sullinger might be way better than people think

And people don't necessarily criticize analytics. They have a problem with the analytics side saying a mid-range game is useless and inefficient, when everybody that's played in every level, coached, or been a part of basketball say that you need a good mid-range game to survive.

>
>And people don't necessarily criticize analytics. They have a
>problem with the analytics side saying a mid-range game is
>useless and inefficient, when everybody that's played in every
>level, coached, or been a part of basketball say that you need
>a good mid-range game to survive.



mid-range game should be one of the first parts of your game learned


everything else comes after imo

Goodness gracious

Just admit that most "analytics" is dumb shit that
non-athletes came up with to con their way into
sports

Its dumb

I can hire a 10th grader to do "analytics" using
basic ass loic

Kobe and Bron must have had an unheard of growth spurt and Shaq must have developed a serious mid-range jumper.

Even without you just throwing out names, you just named 5 of the best players of the last 20 years....so yes, they are outliers compared to the normal professional basketball player.

All championship teams have an "outlier" talent.

There a lot of fucking ways to be great at basketball.

That's why Morey and company are idiots.

you couldnt even come out with relevant examples.

i kind of like your argument, but you're going about it in a pretty lazy and unconvincing way.

NBA champions *all* have "outlier" talent.

Every one of them.

That being the case, the "outlier" is not actually an outlier, and the "science" that relegates essential elements to outlier status is a stupid science that does little to help us understand how to win.

That's about as dumbed down as I can make it.

yeah, obviously it's not easy to re-create, but you still look at what they're doing to gain insights into how to get better at the game.

>yeah, obviously it's not easy to re-create, but you still
>look at what they're doing to gain insights into how to get
>better at the game.

Everybody took that "Moneyball" shit too literally

I LOVEd the book and story, and believe in the approach, I really
do

But there's a reason the story ignores one of the most dominant
starting pitching staffs ever.

Why does it ignore it? Because IT IS AN OUTLIER that ruins the
essential argument: all that walk and long ball shit works when you
have dominant starting pitching.

So even those Oakland A teams had an OUTLIER that was AS
essential to the Moneyball team success as the cool stats were
(and again -- I like Beane, and love the story)

Everyone has Billy Beane envy. Morey is just the worst culprit,
and use his MIT education to manipulate less articulate, less
formally educated people into thinking he's introducing new
concepts

He didn't introduce shit and was probably in the lower 99th
percentile of actual smart people at MIT

All this "mid range jumpshooting is always bad" is silly if you add
"but you can win with mid range shooting if A,B and C" are in place

LMAAAOOO

when they left before the 2002 season. beane didn't luck into that rotation, he picked them using similar methods (young and undervalued), but they were already there by the time the book starts so there was no reason to focus on them. they do go into depth about chad bradford and a couple other relievers because it happened that season.

>All this "mid range jumpshooting is always bad" is silly if
>you add
>"but you can win with mid range shooting if A,B and C" are in
>place
>
>LMAAAOOO

what's so absurd about that if the evidence is there? there's plenty of ideas that are awful for most but work for some people. i wouldn't suggest the hook shot to most players, but for the handful of athletes that can actually master it, have at it.


edit: i didn't realize how old this post was. you probably won't see this.

>when they left before the 2002 season. beane didn't luck into
>that rotation, he picked them using similar methods (young and
>undervalued), but they were already there by the time the book
>starts so there was no reason to focus on them. they do go
>into depth about chad bradford and a couple other relievers
>because it happened that season.

No, they book didn't cover the rotation because anyone with
two eyes could have told you that rotation was great. It didn't
take a statistical ghost in the machine. It took eyes.

That rotation is why they were good.

Not that walk and long ball bullshit.

>>All this "mid range jumpshooting is always bad" is silly if
>>you add
>>"but you can win with mid range shooting if A,B and C" are
>in
>>place
>>
>>LMAAAOOO
>
>what's so absurd about that if the evidence is there? there's
>plenty of ideas that are awful for most but work for some
>people. i wouldn't suggest the hook shot to most players, but
>for the handful of athletes that can actually master it, have
>at it.
>
>
>edit: i didn't realize how old this post was. you probably
>won't see this.
>


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

>
>Goodness gracious
>
>Just admit that most "analytics" is dumb shit that
>non-athletes came up with to con their way into
>sports
>
>Its dumb
>
>I can hire a 10th grader to do "analytics" using
>basic ass loic

They built huge, profitable businesses where they measure every little aspect ... then they're supposed to go into the sports business and hand over blank checks to their GMs and just trust their subjective judgments and intuition?

Nah, they want to seem some numbers backing the decisions. Some of these advanced stats may ultimately be useless but it gives owners the sense of greater transparency into their biggest expense.

>>
>>Goodness gracious
>>
>>Just admit that most "analytics" is dumb shit that
>>non-athletes came up with to con their way into
>>sports
>>
>>Its dumb
>>
>>I can hire a 10th grader to do "analytics" using
>>basic ass loic
>
>They built huge, profitable businesses where they measure
>every little aspect ... then they're supposed to go into the
>sports business and hand over blank checks to their GMs and
>just trust their subjective judgments and intuition?
>
>Nah, they want to seem some numbers backing the decisions.
>Some of these advanced stats may ultimately be useless but it
>gives owners the sense of greater transparency into their
>biggest expense.

"Analytics" is not about analysis

Its this idea that there are statistical ghosts in the machine,
shortcuts that allow you to win on the cheap

It doesn't work that fucking way

The Moneyball A's team won because they had one of the best
starting rotations in the history of baseball. It wasn't
that dumbass sabermetrics in the lineup. Without an ace staff
ASSEMBLED USING CLASSIC METRICS (EVERYONE, old school or new
school, knew that A's rotation was beast) the A's ain't shit.

Same thing goes for basketball.

Good basketball players on good teams win.

The Miami Heat won the last 2.

Is that because of analytics, or because of 3 OBVIOUS
hall of famers, 3 of the top 5 picks from the same
draft? LOL

And you're always going to need people who know the fucking
game to make that determination.

Plus, all these "quants" that teams are hiring are really
dumb kids from the Ivy league who know how to program Ruby
and use 5 cent words

They aren't actually smart, don't really know what the fuck
they are talking about

They just dumber people into thinking they have a secret

For example, there is ZERO chance Morey was among the smartest
75% people in his MIT B school class. Zero. None. I can guarantee
it.

Morey and his disciples at ESPN like to say that analytics change when the market changes but that doesn't play in basketball. Moreyball has nothing to do with market dynamics. It's not like people underappreciating guys who could hit the three or get to the foul line. It was that, statistically, shooting a three makes more sense than shooting a mid-to-long range jumper.
It's a philosophy that won't because of the market; it'll only change if suddenly everyone becomes amazing mid-range jump shooters; something that won't happen as long as Morey and Co. hammer home the idea that those shots are the worst and shouldn't be worked on.

Morey says that if he had Aldridge that he would change up his style but I guarantee that if they landed someone like Aldridge, they would focus on having him work on his three point shot. We're seeing the stat-friendly Celtics do it with Jared Sullinger who was hoisting up threes despite shooting at a horrid clip.

It's also funny that Morey say that he would change if he had Aldridge but his team's defense hasn't changed when facing Aldridge. They keep giving him the mid-range jumper and he's made them pay.

>It's a philosophy that won't because of the market; it'll only
>change if suddenly everyone becomes amazing mid-range jump
>shooters; something that won't happen as long as Morey and Co.
>hammer home the idea that those shots are the worst and
>shouldn't be worked on.
>
>Morey says that if he had Aldridge that he would change up his
>style but I guarantee that if they landed someone like
>Aldridge, they would focus on having him work on his three
>point shot. We're seeing the stat-friendly Celtics do it with
>Jared Sullinger who was hoisting up threes despite shooting at
>a horrid clip.

>
>Good basketball players on good teams win.
>
>The Miami Heat won the last 2.
>
>Is that because of analytics, or because of 3 OBVIOUS
>hall of famers, 3 of the top 5 picks from the same
>draft? LOL
>
>And you're always going to need people who know the fucking
>game to make that determination.

If you're anything more than a casual observer of the game, you can identify who the top 2 or 3 guys are in this years free agent class and also who's among the best in the league otherwise.

And it's clear that you need a couple of those kind of players to be a real contender because almost every champion in my lifetime has had at least 2 great players.

I don't think the quants even question that... I mean, the Rockets do have 2 of the top players in the league by choice.

So this really isn't about figuring out who the absolute BEST players are, it's about figuring out how to best build out the rest of the roster and how to best use the skillsets you've got.

It's actually funny you use the Heat as an example since Spoelstra is a proponent of analytics and has used them to change how Bosh plays. http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/miamiheat/post/_/id/4356/how-advanced-stats-changed-chris-boshs-game

I am not even sure he is that effective/convincing of an example, really, not that strong efficiency wise especially looking at his 2pt/midrange looks. BUT I doubt that applies to like a Hamilton or Allen, who certainly had their primes in a very similar NBA to today's (shit those guys are still around). They were just normal sized shooting guards and were absolutely a weapon from midrange. If you took out his shots against the clock, heat checks, etc, Melo, a 3/4 tweener who doesn't have Dirk or LA's size would be not only effective but efficient, too.

You've got less significant examples as well, the old-man types at the four who have their spots on the floor where they are automatic.

I just think throwing all mid-range shots together is less telling than all lay ups or long range shots.

>I just think throwing all mid-range shots together is less
>telling than all lay ups or long range shots.

Not all mid-range jumpers are created equal...especially when we are talking about say a big who can shoot it effectively (which allows for the wings, who are more often better 3 pt shooters, to have better looks from distance...obviously you know this already) vs a pull-up jumper off the dribble. Any analytics person who lazily lumps mid-rangers into one category shouldn't be taken seriously in terms of understanding basketball...so unless you do have one of those rare bigs who are effective in the mid-range, it may be a good idea to avoid that area of the floor based on the other aggregate data that we see (personally, it doesn't make sense to have a 'no mid-range policy' for the entire team like people are saying Morey employs...I'd much rather go player by player to see where their efficiencies lie. If say Harden has shown himself to be efficient from a certain mid-range spot on the floor, then let him shoot if he gets to that spot...etc etc for each player. We know the game is all about getting to certain spots on the floor so why not use data to tell us where those spots are for each player).

And second in attempted 3s?

Sit down dude.

Damien is the only guy on the team who really forces (and, despite what really should happens on such bad shots, repeatedly converts) 3FGs. all other Blazer shooters are primarily spot-up, catch + shoot long-range weapons whose shot only comes as a result of ball movement by the Blazers offense to catch a rotating defense out.

The team is shooting the 2nd most threes per game EVER.

A great mid range on a big man isn't the same as a guard shooting pull up mid range jumpers ala waiters, holiday ect. That is what everyone is arguing against.

and you're exactly right -- not all midrange shots are created equal, which is why the reductive "midrange is the worst shot in basketball" conclusion is flawed.

SOME midrange shots are detrimental to a team offense, but not all. it seems, given available evidence, that a healthy midrange game is a key to a strong team offense. Morey's insistence on the Rockets avoiding the midrange as much as possible is dogmatic and very possibly wrong.

>A great mid range on a big man isn't the same as a guard
>shooting pull up mid range jumpers ala waiters, holiday ect.
>That is what everyone is arguing against.

What kind of fucking rule is that?

You can't add dozens of conditions to a rule

Its either true, or shut the fuck up and come up with
something else

Morey's "genius" takes on the game need like 1000 plea cops
and conditions in order to be true. They are, therefore,
worthless

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

Both are not apt to take many shots at all.

They do let it fly from three but personally my argument has never been for the midrange shot over the long range shot (or vice versa) but rather how the two can fit together and produce effective offense.

You choose Waiters as an example, OK, what about Richard Hamilton, Ray Allen, et al? Those guys are not some 7-footer who can shoot over the top or even a bigger guard with crazy rise (e.g. younger Kobe, TMac).

It's just foolishness to me to totally downplay the midrange jumper when I look back over the years and think of how many guys--at every level--could take a 12-18 foot shot from straightaway, the elbow, the wing, etc and make it an AUTOMATIC shot.

to me the anti-midrange argument finds its merit in the obvious and non-analytical, things like closer is better than further, three is a larger number than two and contested is lower percentage than uncontested. to me, the blazers are able to combine a mix of effective outside shooting, a couple solid penetrators, a decent post player, very good foul shooting, ball movement, offensive glass work and the midrange game to make their offense work.

it's clearly the worst shooting year of his career. he's just doing everything else way better to make up for it.

Analytic heads get it wrong bc they can allow numbers to override common sense. Of course, mid range jumpers have the least value in terms of points scored/percentages. However, common sense says a guy without a mid range game ain't getting any layups bc defenses will know he can't/won't pullup.

Conversely, guys that rely on midrange jumpers as a whole aren't really effective scorers. They are usually contested jumpshots off a dribble and rarely lead to free throws ala melo. A lot of times guys are happy to get off their mid range jumper when in fact they should be using it to keep defenses honest. Any coach would be content if their defense is forcing guys like durant and lebron to shoot pull up jumpers for a whole game. If they are hitting that, well then they just on and you gotta start doubling them from 20+ft out lol

players ever
don't know how those bulls team shot the 3 overall, but i know jordan was taking the bulk of the shots and was a relatively shitty 3 pt shooter who relied on the mid range
if Moreyites want to preach the 3 pt go head, you can score a lot of points shooting mostly 3s obviously
to win championships you need to be elite defensively and that's the bottom line
a lot of times Moreyites like to cite the spurs and heat when talking about the 3 while ignoring the fact they are elite defensive teams who could make stops unlike the rockets (and 'antoni suns)
personally i'm not really hung up on what you do offensively, if your defense isn't on par shit doesn't really matter

fascinating post!

not in that celery makes good or interesting points, but in his obfuscation of facts that prove the precise opposite of his argument. he's like a toddler looking at an apple and gleefully calling it a flying squirrel.

points to consider:

aldridge's TS% is .515, good for sixth on the blazers among dudes who play
league average for a PF is around .540
matthews, batum, lopez, lillard are all near .60

aldridge scores 108 points per 100 possessions
the blazers score 113 points per 100 possessions as a team

aldridge shoots 45% from midrange
per 100 possessions, that would be 90 points per 100 possessions. the bucks have the worst offensive rating in the NBA as a team at 99 points per 100 possessions

so being that aldridge is a below-average scorer plagued by over-reliance on midrange jumpers, how are the blazers the best offensive team in the league?

threes, baby.

1st in 3s made
tied for 1st in 3pt accuracy
they score 28% of their points from 3pt, same ratio as the rockets last season
matthews, batum, lopez, lillard all have 3PTA rates between 40% and 55%

what else?

1st in FT%
4th in offensive rebounding
4th fewest turnovers

well, none of those have much to do with midrange jumpers. wait, here's the impact:

14th in 2pt%

you can tinker together an argument that having aldridge take midrange jumpers is better than someone else taking midrange jumpers. or maybe that he helps spread the floor (although having tons of 3-pt shooters and lillard penetrating does a much better job of that). but aldridge's shabby scoring has nothing to do with the blazers' success - and plainly illustrates that even a dynamite midrange shooter is a lousy offensive weapon.

hope you learned something today, guys! fun times

because obviously you're right in analyzing Aldridge's individual performance, but you seem to totally ignore the the 3FGA as the end result of a complex offensive action. it's not as if Batum or Matthews are creating their high-return shot opportunities by themselves. both players are pretty poor at creating their own shot, which is why they are rarely left on the floor without Aldridge or Lillard to anchor the offense.

or perhaps you're suggesting that the only reason Portland's offense is better than say, Houston's, is because Portland's 3-point shooters are so good? that might add up, except here are the eFG% of some notable Portland and Houston shooters:

Portland:
Matthews - .604
Batum - .561
Lopez - .544
Lillard - .518
Aldridge - .473

Houston:
Parsons - .584
Howard - .583
Lin - .546
Beverly - .505
Harden - .502

the most noticeable gap there is that Portland's highest volume shooter has a considerably lower eFG% than anyone on Houston, and overall Houston's shooters (ranked strictly by eFG% here) are similar, if not superior, to Portland's.

let's not suggest that Portland is just chucking 3s (and making them at a high rate) simply because math told them to hoist from downtown. sure, maybe this applies to Lillard a bit (plus, Lillard is still a shitty, shitty finisher at the rim -- 31.3% FGs on drives?!? yuuuck!) but the shots are the result of a well-spaced team offense -- Lopez at the rim, Aldridge at the elbow, and shooters spaced at the arc.

which brings us back to the Boogie question. would one expect Portland's offense to improve if Boogie replaced Aldridge? midrange would presumably be replaced by higher % shots at the rim, but ... there's a long list of buts:

-- it would be easier for opposing Ds to pack the paint
-- Lopez would be diminished as his position next to the basket would become crowded
-- it would be easier for opposing Ds to stay close to the 3-point shooters, as there's no elbow action to be respected

which, perhaps, has something to do with explaining why Portland > Houston on offense despite the fact that their offense strategies really only share a reliance on the 3FGA (Houston currently shoots 26.5 3FG/gm, Portland 25.9 3FG/gm). or are you really gonna say the only reason for the 3 point per 100 possession higher return is just better shooting from Matthews, Lillard, and Batum?




(and last thing -- correct me if I'm wrong, I genuinely don't know, but wouldn't offensive rebounding be pretty moot when considering points per 100 possessions? one possession is a missed shot, then it's o-rebounded, then the next possession is a made 3 let's say, therefore 3 points on 2 possessions, right?)

now he's just doing a little bit more dirty work in exchange on the defensive end in exchange for embracing his peculiar mid range game on offense. it's his worst offense year in terms of shooting ever. that's just what it is.

overall it's playing out pretty well. can't hate it.

this is a career year for Aldridge in basically every category except shooting %.

and I know people want to ignore it, but this is also not even midway of the 2nd year of Aldridge's career under any coach besides Nate McMillan. I know Stotts gets credit for his reinvention of the offense overall, but something needs to be said about the fact that Stotts might just be a better motivator for (the admittedly more reserved, less 'alpha' type) guys like Aldridge (and Nic) than a taskmaster like Sarge.

and while perhaps LA might still benefit by hitting the block more (although he still does tons, and still commands a double against all but the elite low-post defenders), it's worth considering that there's greater value in his midrange game than one might think at first glance.

i mean honestly to tell what's really going on here we'd have to watch A LOT of tape. which if anyone on the net wants to pay me to do, i'm all for it.

i still tend to believe that the offensive efficiency comes more from the team having 2 and a half guys who i'd consider good passers on the court at all times, and that the only people who take threes on the team are all okay to good shooters from range. both of those help a lot.

but if aldridge taking them long twos is responsible for any of it i'd be good to watch what defenses are doing when he's hanging out 15 feet away.

With Lopez taking a lot of the burden off his shoulders in terms of defending 5's, rebounding, protecting the basket (all of which are grinding, energy sappers), LA has more stamina and energy to contribute to those aspects as well. It's a synergistic relationship.

With his ability to make shots on the elbow (even at 45% from that distance, he's threat enough that teams have to rotate hard to him) causing defenses to rotate, it allows Mathews and Batum to get excellent looks with their feet set. The Blazers continuously cycle him through the mid for that reason.

Essentially what those numbers tell me is that teams should allow LA to shoot mid-range jumpers all-game rather than rotate hard to him when he flashes to his spot. But as long as teams don't do that and continue to rotate hard (which is caused by his perceived mid-range threat), you can't discount the effect he has in creating those made 3's.

http://tinyurl.com/lpwvowf

I've never bought into the poo-pooing of it, in fact even less so than the changing opinion on the post-up I think it is misguided. It's not exactly a revelation to say that mid-range shots are less effective than inside shots but going beyond that they are more likely to go up against the clock than a three and more likely to be contested when they do. You've got that and other factors that lower their percentages. Further, even if the disparity is real, an offense that limits itself to long shots and short ones is like a football team that only runs up the middle or throws bombs. In basketball you've got less and less offensive space now as guys get bigger and faster, now you're eliminating a big chunk of near-prime real estate?

>In basketball you've got
>less and less offensive space now as guys get bigger and
>faster, now you're eliminating a big chunk of near-prime real
>estate?

like you said, it's not difficult, applying nothing but the eyeball test, to tell the difference between a "good" midrange shot and a "bad" one (just like there are bad 3FGAs, too). what's interesting to consider is the role of the midrange in a disciplined, efficient offense. is it always, always bad? or does it serve a function in creating floor balance?

because sure, the Blazers shoot the the 3FG extremely well (.396% as a team, compared to .343% for the Rockets, who shoot a similar volume), but perhaps that efficiency is based on more than just the individual talent of the shooters?

And doesn't when it doesn't.

LIke, Jordan was a mid-range jumpshooter on the last
few Bulls chips, not on the first three Bulls chips

Because sometimes it fucking works, sometimes it doesn't

Jesus Christ

Let's just intelligent watch the games and understand the
sport

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/pdx-problems-what-exactly-is-wrong-with-the-blazers/

-----------
Y'all stupid...should've tanked for Lebron/Wiggins in 2014 -Rex LongFellow

It's only funny till someone gets mad. Then it's hilarious.

http://oi39.tinypic.com/2ih01ky.gif

if it were about Kevin Love.

and I hate this "what's wrong with Portland?" trope (both here, and in Portland generally). The team is performing well above preseason expectations, the starting unit is still an elite five man group in the NBA, and Nic Batum is still the hardwood Zizou. Any Portlander who started dreaming of Conference Finals is probably still wearing their Pryzbilla jersey and saying the word "LaMarsha" with friends.

Oh and Z-Lo does a good job pointing out that most of what's happening right now is an aberration due to the schedule. It's a blip, the first time Portland has had to deal with injury issues all year, every one arriving at the same time. It ain't got zip to do with the starting five being a headache every time they're healthy and putting in work.

I mean, the ONE team he can't lose to would be Portland, right?

The pedulum could easily swing back in the other direction but had to get this back up there for the fireworks.

I was mowing niggas down in here

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "

obviously, the mid range is the worst shot in basketball and should usually be avoided whenever possible. the core argument is undeniable.

however, as quants often do, they forget the key addition to the core argument, which is, there are always exceptions to every rule. when quant moves from the hands of the researchers to cheerleaders, OR when a field is too young/not intellectually rigorous enough, you get a lot of instances where we move from a true statement of something being USUALLY true to a false statement of ZOMG SUCH TRUTH MANY ALWAYS WOW.

as i see it, the last year has shown us at least three exceptions/caveats to the general rule.

1) some guys are good enough mid-range shooters that their mid range shots qualify as good shots. There are probably no more than 10 of those guys in the league at a given time, but they exist. Aldridge, Bosh, and Dirk are three examples off the top of my head.

2) extension of number 1: if you have one of those ten guys, you can use the mid range to really open up better shots. In short, we see how Aldrige opened up the spacing for the Portland offense, much like Dirk's been doing for years.

The caveat to these first two caveats, though: Team BWAHAHAnalytics ought to be very careful extrapolating too much. For one, it's no coincidence that the three examples I could name of the top of my list are bigs. A 4 or 5 who can shoot the midrange has an advantage because it's likely the guy covering him isn't really that comfortable away from the basket. For a 1, 2, or 3, the equation changes. Also, let's remember that the midrange is worthwhile only to the extent you make a high enough percentage to open other stuff up and that it's the other stuff that matters.

(I use BWAHAHAnalytics out of love and don't mean to imply that said team doesn't believe anything in the last paragraph I just wrote. I think the spacing argument has been exactly your point, and it's fair. Just be careful going from that to "hey, the midrange is BACK, baby!"

3. You can try all you want to avoid the midrange, but the other teams know that's what you're going to try to do. At some point in the playoffs, you're probably going to meet a team that makes you make midrange shots to move on. Bron and Wade almost lost a title last year because the analytics community had so brainwashed them into midrange is bad that they turned down wide open looks to get contested shots. Take what's available.

honestly even morey doesnt think analytics are the end-all, i saw him on NBATV years ago talking about how often advanced stats confirmed eyeball observations (used battier as his example) and that it was a combination sort of deal.

that said, last night aldridge did miss a number of open mid range jumpers. but thanks to that we got lillard's shot. that shit was beautiful

Breaking news: strawman version of analytics is wrong.

-----------
Y'all stupid...should've tanked for Lebron/Wiggins in 2014 -Rex LongFellow

Its 2014...there are computers in glasses and people stunt after hitting the ball far. Get over it. -Cenario

It's only funny till someone gets mad. Then it's hilariou

The pick and roll already puts a lot of stress on a defense so if you have a big who can force that weak-side to hedge or rotate to cover space, you are really causing a lot of defensive movement which gives the offense a huge advantage. It's no coincidence the 4/5 reliable shooting bigs are often involved in the screen-roll where the big settles into that pocket which forces the defense to make some decisions.

----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "