What's up with all of these 3pt shots? Strategy or Choice?

[JimmieZ]

Please someone tell me why our guards do not take midrange shots, or floaters. I think that a strong emphasis on the midrange shots on the pick and roll would open up this offense. A majority of the time our guards are over penetrating which lead into turnovers, lower percentage shots (contested 3's).

Am I wrong?

[RobertM320]

Short answer. Analytics.

[Pelicanidae]

The simple answer is that 3 points are better than 2 points and you have to be exceptionally great at shooting midrange shots to make it even approach the value of any given 3 point shot.

The longer answer is pretty complicated, but I'll do my best to explain it without writing 5000 words on it.

The absolute best thing you can do to understand why pretty much every team, not just us, prefers the 3 point shot to the long midrange is to watch this video:

It's a talk by Seth Partnow, who currently writes for The Athletic and used to be a member of the Milwaukee Bucks analytics department. It's a pretty interesting talk that basically outlines why the league has progressed the way it has in terms of shot selection. It essentially boils down to a few relatively simple points.

1) The best players in the NBA still take as many midrange shots as they ever have, with a few exceptions.
2) The players who are cutting midrangers out of their skillset are the roleplayers, who get fewer shot attempts and therefore need to have their attempts come from higher value areas if they're going to be justified.
3) 3 pointers are so much more valuable than 2 points, that you don't even have to be a league average 3pt shooter in order for your corner 3 to be more effective at creating points than a league-best midrange shooter taking a 20 footer.
4) Stretching defenses out to the 3pt line is super valuable and creates more interior space for drivers and ball-handlers.

Something which is a more recent development that Partnow doesn't really mention in this video, is the rise of ''heliocentrism'' as a concept in basketball. You can watch a pretty good, short video on the idea here:

Essentially, it comes down to the fact that best, most efficient offenses tend to rely around a kind of Mega-Creator, who has the ball in their hands the majority of the time that they're on the court and who masterminds the majority of the offense via their own offensive gravity and their ability to pass. The best way to maximise this is to follow the Lebron model: that is, have a ballhandler who is unstoppable at driving and surround them with shooters to pass to. The 3pt shooters open up the paint in a way that makes the driving easier, and the harder the ballhandler can drive, the easier it is for them to generate at-rim attempts (the most valuable field goal attempts in basketball) and the more options they have for passing out for threes (the second most valuable shots in basketball).

The only reasons you really have for taking long midrangers are the following:

1) You're one of the absolute best midrange shooters in the NBA. I'm talking prime Kevin Durant here: gotta be shooting pretty much 50% from midrange to make it generate more points than even a mediocre 3pt shooter taking a corner 3. This is incredibly rare, it's basically a handful of players in any given season who can do that on any real volume.
2) It's the only shot you're going to get: it's a broken play, or there's only 4 seconds left on the clock and you have no time to work for a better shot, something like that.
3) A couple of them throughout the game, just for variety and to stop the offense becoming predictable.

That's about it. If you're a roleplayer, and you ever find yourself working to get a 20 foot jumper with 20 seconds left on the clock, then there's something not quite right about your offense.

[Nichols]

Nothing wrong with a higher volume of 3 pointers if they're quality attempts.. I don't like the idea of hoisting up bad/rushed shots from deep.

The logic in taking more 3's than mid-range shots actually makes sense. Having a mid-range game however does aid in having a well rounded offensive repertoire.

[Pelicanidae]

It's also worth noting that, as a team, the Pelicans actually shoot a fair number of midrangers compared to other teams.

According to NBAshotcharts.com, 27% of our shot attempts come in the midrange (where we generate 0.74 points per shot), compared to 42% from the 3pt line (1.1 points per shot) and 31% at the rim (1.23 points per shot). If anything, this tells you that we don't need more midrange shots, we need more at-rim attempts: which I think most of us would agree with, to be honest. Many of us have commented about how valuable Zion will be because of his ability to actually attack the rim, and many of us have been annoyed by the lack of driving and efficient finishing from this team so far this year.

For comparison, if 27% of our shots come in the midrange, and we generate 0.74 points per shot on these attempts, how does that compare to other teams? Teams with good offenses? Let's look at the top 5 offenses in the NBA to see.

1) Dallas Mavericks: 27% of their shots are also midrange, and they generate 0.81 points per shot.
2) Houston Rockets: 18% of their shots are midrange, where they generate 0.78 points per shot.
3) Milwaukee Bucks: 23% of their shots are midrange, generating 0.84 points per shot
4) Washington Wizards: 30% of their shots are midrange, for 0.85 points per shot.
5) Boston Celtics: 30% of their shots are also midrange, for 0.85 points per shot.

So our 27% of shot attempts at the midrange is actually very normal compared to the best offenses in the NBA. We are just inefficient at scoring at them, relative to these good offensive teams.

[DarkHornet]

The simple answer is that 3 points are better than 2 points and you have to be exceptionally great at shooting midrange shots to make it even approach the value of any given 3 point shot.

The longer answer is pretty complicated, but I'll do my best to explain it without writing 5000 words on it.

The absolute best thing you can do to understand why pretty much every team, not just us, prefers the 3 point shot to the long midrange is to watch this video:

It's a talk by Seth Partnow, who currently writes for The Athletic and used to be a member of the Milwaukee Bucks analytics department. It's a pretty interesting talk that basically outlines why the league has progressed the way it has in terms of shot selection. It essentially boils down to a few relatively simple points.

1) The best players in the NBA still take as many midrange shots as they ever have, with a few exceptions.
2) The players who are cutting midrangers out of their skillset are the roleplayers, who get fewer shot attempts and therefore need to have their attempts come from higher value areas if they're going to be justified.
3) 3 pointers are so much more valuable than 2 points, that you don't even have to be a league average 3pt shooter in order for your corner 3 to be more effective at creating points than a league-best midrange shooter taking a 20 footer.
4) Stretching defenses out to the 3pt line is super valuable and creates more interior space for drivers and ball-handlers.

Something which is a more recent development that Partnow doesn't really mention in this video, is the rise of ''heliocentrism'' as a concept in basketball. You can watch a pretty good, short video on the idea here:

Essentially, it comes down to the fact that best, most efficient offenses tend to rely around a kind of Mega-Creator, who has the ball in their hands the majority of the time that they're on the court and who masterminds the majority of the offense via their own offensive gravity and their ability to pass. The best way to maximise this is to follow the Lebron model: that is, have a ballhandler who is unstoppable at driving and surround them with shooters to pass to. The 3pt shooters open up the paint in a way that makes the driving easier, and the harder the ballhandler can drive, the easier it is for them to generate at-rim attempts (the most valuable field goal attempts in basketball) and the more options they have for passing out for threes (the second most valuable shots in basketball).

The only reasons you really have for taking long midrangers are the following:

1) You're one of the absolute best midrange shooters in the NBA. I'm talking prime Kevin Durant here: gotta be shooting pretty much 50% from midrange to make it generate more points than even a mediocre 3pt shooter taking a corner 3. This is incredibly rare, it's basically a handful of players in any given season who can do that on any real volume.
2) It's the only shot you're going to get: it's a broken play, or there's only 4 seconds left on the clock and you have no time to work for a better shot, something like that.
3) A couple of them throughout the game, just for variety and to stop the offense becoming predictable.

That's about it. If you're a roleplayer, and you ever find yourself working to get a 20 foot jumper with 20 seconds left on the clock, then there's something not quite right about your offense.

There is a lot of education for me in this post. Thank you for sharing this!

[luigi modelo]

It's really enjoyed watching Ingram select a nice balance of mid-range and 3 pt shots. The skill it takes to get a quality pull up still has value in the league, and Ingram's play is a good reminder of that

[Pelicanidae]

There is a lot of education for me in this post. Thank you for sharing this!

You're welcome!

[luckyman]

The problem is when you look for and prefer 3 point shots over shot at the rim. Layups, dunks, shots within 5 ft, and foul shots are still what any offense should be predicated around. If you want a PRIME example of when 3 point stupidity goes wrong, look no further than Brooklyn's game last night.

The midrange shot is also valuable. It makes the defense respect all areas of the floor. But any offense's main objective should begin with trying to score at the rim. Which is the Pelicans main problem right now.

[Pelicanidae]

It's really enjoyed watching Ingram select a nice balance of mid-range and 3 pt shots. The skill it takes to get a quality pull up still has value in the league, and Ingram's play is a good reminder of that

True, and even Ingram has changed his shot profile drastically this year despite being one of the better mid range shooters in the league.

Last season, Ingram took 14% of his shots from 16ft-3pt line (long-midrange): he shot 43% on these attempts. He took 20% of his shots from 10ft-16ft (short midrange) and shot 38.9% on these attempts. He only took 12.9% of his shots from beyond the arc.

This season, Ingram is taking 31.3% of his shots from behind the arc, 17% from short midrange (shooting 47.4% on these), and only 9% from long midrange (shooting 44.7% on these). He's cut out basically a third of the worst shots he was taking and moved them back a few feet behind the line, drastically increasing the shot value.

[Pelicanidae]

The problem is when you look for and prefer 3 point shots over shot at the rim. Layups, dunks, shots within 5 ft, and foul shots are still what any offense should be predicated around. If you want a PRIME example of when 3 point stupidity goes wrong, look no further than Brooklyn's game last night.

The midrange shot is also valuable. It makes the defense respect all areas of the floor. But any offense's main objective should begin with trying to score at the rim. Which is the Pelicans main problem right now.

Agreed. At-rim attempts are the absolute best shots in basketball for producing value, and they should be a focus. However, if you look up the stats on this season you find that the Pelicans actually take a fairly normal %age of their shots at the rim compared to top 5 offenses (31% of our shot attempts come at the rim: by comparison, Boston, Milwaukee, and Dallas all take about 30% of their shots at-rim too). The primary difference is efficiency there: we create 1.23 points per shot at the rim, whereas a team like Dallas produces almost 1.4 points per shot on those attempts. We are taking at-rim shots, but we aren't taking good ones, and we aren't finishing them.

Seems like a cop-out to say it, but man, we are going to appreciate having Zion back.

[luckyman]

Agreed. At-rim attempts are the absolute best shots in basketball for producing value, and they should be a focus. However, if you look up the stats on this season you find that the Pelicans actually take a fairly normal %age of their shots at the rim compared to top 5 offenses (31% of our shot attempts come at the rim: by comparison, Boston, Milwaukee, and Dallas all take about 30% of their shots at-rim too). The primary difference is efficiency there: we create 1.23 points per shot at the rim, whereas a team like Dallas produces almost 1.4 points per shot on those attempts. We are taking at-rim shots, but we aren't taking good ones, and we aren't finishing them.

Seems like a cop-out to say it, but man, we are going to appreciate having Zion back.

The shots at the rim for the Pelicans are the result mostly of iso 1-on-1 (sometimes 1-on 2/3) drives by Jrue or Ingram. Rarely do you see plays designed to get good clean look in the paint. You do however see plays designed for open corner 3s. Even screens and plays where the ball never touches the paint. That's awful and it shows in most metrics.

They also mostly abandon trying to get inside in crunch time and for long stretches of games.

[Pelicanidae]

The shots at the rim for the Pelicans are the result mostly of iso 1-on-1 (sometimes 1-on 2/3) drives by Jrue or Ingram. Rarely do you see plays designed to get good clean look in the paint. You do however see plays designed for open corner 3s. Even screens and plays where the ball never touches the paint. That's awful and it shows in most metrics.

They also mostly abandon trying to get inside in crunch time.

Yeah, that's what I mean by ''we are taking at-rim shots, but we aren't taking good ones''. Our at-rim shots generate sub-par point values when compared to legitimately great offenses. The 'why' that is the case is important, and you've highlighted a solid chunk of it: why are we giving people the ball and just telling them to iso?

Again, this an area where Zion will help somewhat (we already know we have some actions and ideas ready to get him at-rim attempts from off-ball movement, from pre-season) and his gravity will help others too, but there needs to be some actual work done to incorporate more actual structure into the offense in this regard.

I'm trying really hard not to put all of this on Zion being out, because the fact is that with Jrue, Jax, Ingram, and now Favors, we have guys who should be scoring at the rim. But it is also true that Zion being back will give us a guy who is basically going to take 10 shots at the rim every night, and finish them at a high clip. That's going to impact the numbers pretty dramatically.

[SunshinePumper]

The shots at the rim for the Pelicans are the result mostly of iso 1-on-1 (sometimes 1-on 2/3) drives by Jrue or Ingram. Rarely do you see plays designed to get good clean look in the paint. You do however see plays designed for open corner 3s. Even screens and plays where the ball never touches the paint. That's awful and it shows in most metrics.

They also mostly abandon trying to get inside in crunch time and for long stretches of games.

I saw this firsthand when I was in Portland the other night. We took over in the fourth quarter, not because we were running a number of well-designed plays, but because we were hitting an otherworldly number of 3s, particularly Moore and Reddick but Jrue and even Kenny Hustle were getting in on it.