Only had 30 Points, 12 Rebounds and 6 Steals
Montez Mathis Game Highlights
- Thread starter RU-Choppin-Ohio
- Start date
Mid-range shots are dead, I think for good. The stats just don't back up taking them on a regular basis.
I'd love to see mathematical research about this.....not what actually takes place on the court though. i'd like to see what would occur if humans practiced the mid range shot the same way a 3 point shot was practiced.
The skillset of shooting off the dribble has mostly been replaced with the stationary 3 point shot from the corners.
Montez Mathis has the skill set many college coaches want to see.
He constantly attacks the rim.
What a player for a senior. I hope he enjoys his time on the banks, and does very well on the court. He is a humble kid as well. He will be another player that is easy to root for.
He constantly attacks the rim.
What a player for a senior. I hope he enjoys his time on the banks, and does very well on the court. He is a humble kid as well. He will be another player that is easy to root for.
That's a pretty bold statement.
But, I agree that younger players are all about 3 pointers and finishing at the rim. It's a shame, because the dribble drive and then pull up for a short J is one of the most effective shots ever.
Didn't Pitino when at UK decide you either shoot layups or 3's?
Statistically, it makes more sense to shoot a 3 from inside 20 feet than a 2 from 14 feet, from a risk/reward point of view.
Think the math through on a points per shot and it's a no brainer
The mid range game, though has three crucial necessities
1.) hait's required now of your big man to be credible to hit it to pull slumping defenders away from hedging further down low to help and to make the entry pass to the blocks
2.) for the high post on the 2-3, got to hit thar shot. With Eugene driving hard to the hoop inside the zone ...opponents likely will adjust to hedge to see if he can hit it
3.) it makes the high ball screen pick and rolll more credible when the pop of the ball screen is a credible shot
1.) hait's required now of your big man to be credible to hit it to pull slumping defenders away from hedging further down low to help and to make the entry pass to the blocks
2.) for the high post on the 2-3, got to hit thar shot. With Eugene driving hard to the hoop inside the zone ...opponents likely will adjust to hedge to see if he can hit it
3.) it makes the high ball screen pick and rolll more credible when the pop of the ball screen is a credible shot
I am not debating the 3 vs. 16 footer from today's college basketball. The lack of practice on the mid range shot is a big reason
My curiosity is from a poor mathematical/physics standpoint. When taking in to consideration a typical margin of error of a shooter who is well practiced from all areas of the court where is the break even part on the court.
My curiosity is from a poor mathematical/physics standpoint. When taking in to consideration a typical margin of error of a shooter who is well practiced from all areas of the court where is the break even part on the court.
Our 4s and 5s -- DeShawn, Eugene and Mamadou -- should be and occasionally are taking those midrange jumpers when open.
Mike and Geo are taking those shots, and occasionally Corey, though he could pull up more often on those headlong drives to the hole.
Issa needs to work on creating a midrange look for himself, which he can do when a defender runs out on him at the arc, with a head/arm fake and a quick dribble to an open space for the pull-up jumper.
That's 7 guys we have who are capable of taking and making midrange shots, although Eugene and Issa need lots more work on it.
Mike and Geo are taking those shots, and occasionally Corey, though he could pull up more often on those headlong drives to the hole.
Issa needs to work on creating a midrange look for himself, which he can do when a defender runs out on him at the arc, with a head/arm fake and a quick dribble to an open space for the pull-up jumper.
That's 7 guys we have who are capable of taking and making midrange shots, although Eugene and Issa need lots more work on it.
Last edited:
It is hard to say there are that many players capable of making it when you look at the shooting percentages. If your free throws are below .700, your 3 pt shot below .280, there raises the question on the potential of the player to shoot these shots and make them.
I would say Mike Williams has consistent form, and I could see him being capable there. Sanders form is inconsistent and that is why his shot doesn't fall a lot. Williams is even having a tough season there. I would say he is still playing through injury. It is effecting his game a lot.
Among the seven I mentioned, Mamadou has the best midrange jumper by far, with the best form.
There's nothing wrong with some mid range shots. They should be almost exclusively late shot clock looks, though.
Midrange basketball has little to do with math or physics- it is art. The player with a complete game is less concerned with a particular spot or distance - I honestly don't think it makes much difference. The thing that matters the most is if they can get an open look within some kind of rhythm. That is why chemistry is so important to basketball- possibly more so than other sports.
With how pick and rolls are set up, it is beneficial to have a midrange game.
With that being said, you have to be a great shooter. Rutgers does not have that many players that should be taking midrange jumpers right now.
There are so many more offensive parts to todays game. If we are discussing shots, a floater has done a good job at replacing the jump shot. I have found floaters easier personally. You just need to go a step more into the paint.
The only players I am confident about taking a midrange shot right now are Baker and Doucoure. Baker establishes a wide base, and it lends to a good shot.
Be versatile, and you will have more options. If you have proper mechanics, you will find a lot of shots workable for you. Rutgers does not have that.
With that being said, you have to be a great shooter. Rutgers does not have that many players that should be taking midrange jumpers right now.
There are so many more offensive parts to todays game. If we are discussing shots, a floater has done a good job at replacing the jump shot. I have found floaters easier personally. You just need to go a step more into the paint.
The only players I am confident about taking a midrange shot right now are Baker and Doucoure. Baker establishes a wide base, and it lends to a good shot.
Be versatile, and you will have more options. If you have proper mechanics, you will find a lot of shots workable for you. Rutgers does not have that.
Because you'd rather get a layup or an open 3. The expected scoring output is just higher for those. If the opponent defends well and you don't get that, then you look to create space for a 2-point jumper.
Rutgers being so bad at 3's right now changes the math a bit but in general if you can hit a 2 point jumper you should be able to hit a 3-point jumper at a more efficient rate.
Say you have a player hitting 50% of his 2-point jumpers. That's an EV of 1 point per shot. He'd only have to hit 3's at a 34% clip to make it make more sense to shoot a 3 (1.02 points per shot). I'd suspect most guys capable of shooting 50% on 2-point jumpers (just jumpers, not layups or floaters or hook shots in the lane) can do better than 34% from outside.
I think you guys are over thinking this. You don't turn down open look regardless of range. And...most defenses would still prefer the opposition to take the lower percentage 3 point shot....unless you are playing against three Steph Curry's on the court.
Are coaches going thru that math as they gameplan or decide which plays to call out?
Thw game is more about 3 point shots...but, you don't turn down an open mid range shot in hopes of getting a 3 pointer off.
Last edited:
Yes, they are now.
You don't take it early in the shot clock because you can get those looks often because they are not good percentage looks. It simply doesn't stand up to the rigor of the statistics to back it up. I know lots of people grew up playing that game, but that game is dead. The math KCG posted is what we're talking about here.
Well, 33% on threes is the same as 50% on twos. So, for a 33% three point shooter, they probably shouldn't take any shots from whatever range they start hitting less than 50% out to the three point arc.
Choppin...but, there are other factors to consider. The opportunity for a rebound and 2nd chance shot is greater if you take closer shots. The bounce on a missed three is probably further from the rim and more be more likely to lead to a run out the other way. My guess is that teams that live and die by the 3 also give up a lot of fast break points & easy baskets. The linked articles references Notre Dame, Indiana and Xavier. Good teams, but, not exactly world beaters...Crean was quoted and he is now unemployed .
I just think there is more to this thing than math. You just can't turn down open mid range shots....especially when you have a guy like Duke that can nail them.
Last edited:
No, you shouldn't turn down open shots - any open shot is a good shot, provided it's in the shooter's range. But the worst shot in basketball is one with a foot on the three point arc... lowest points per shot on the court. I never understood guys who took a single dribble to step up and put their heels just past the line - they're not increasing their percentage, and they just gave up the benefit of shooting from distance.
Ideal would be shots from 0-14 feet or so, then 19+. Bigs stepping out and hitting jumpers, guards pulling up for shorter jumpers over shot blockers, outside shooters driving past tight defenders to get a better look... sure. There's just not a lot of call for the 15-19 foot range - better off getting 50% more points for a slight drop in hit rate.
Steph Curry's 2015-16 season was an offensive clinic... and here's his shot chart that season. It's almost exclusively threes and shots in the lane.
