[drk3351Participant]

Hey guys, I made a video breaking down long jumpers and give crucial and telling stats to why long 2’s are horrible shots. I also dive into specific players, thanks for watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch

 

[phila9012Participant]

 I think most people who follow basketball even a little bit already know that. Also you should have compared their long 2 OE to their 3 point OE. 

Another thing saying Lamarcus aldridge should consider taking less long 2s is stupid. He isn’t good at shooting 3s as a 20.7% three point shooter for his career so those would just be bricks. If you have a skill at something you should keep doing what you are doing he worked well from mid range in the Blazers offense. 

I dont know how hard it would be to get stats for this but someone should look into contested 3s vs one dribble long 2s. So someone could find out whether it is more benificial to take a contested 3 when a defender is running at them or to take a dribble to get by them and take a long 2. That would be info most people wouldn’t know and I am curious about.

[phila9012Participant]

 I think most people who follow basketball even a little bit already know that. Also you should have compared their long 2 OE to their 3 point OE. 

Another thing saying Lamarcus aldridge should consider taking less long 2s is stupid. He isn’t good at shooting 3s as a 20.7% three point shooter for his career so those would just be bricks. If you have a skill at something you should keep doing what you are doing he worked well from mid range in the Blazers offense. 

I dont know how hard it would be to get stats for this but someone should look into contested 3s vs one dribble long 2s. So someone could find out whether it is more benificial to take a contested 3 when a defender is running at them or to take a dribble to get by them and take a long 2. That would be info most people wouldn’t know and I am curious about.

[King CaluchaParticipant]

Hi Daniel, I’m a subscriber in your channel… you’re doing a good job. The more you separate from other similar channels, the better.

I’m a stats guy and clearly I would be the first to support your statement about offensive efficiency. However, saying that one should avoid long 2’s at all costs sounds a bit shortsighted. The inefficiency of long 2’s was documented almost 20 years ago and still not a single coach as decided to get rid of them because they provide spacing. Things are not so simple, and I don’t see Houston dominating the league precisely. 

It may sound a bit harsh but maybe you tried to explain it for people who really don’t know much about basketball.

[King CaluchaParticipant]

Hi Daniel, I’m a subscriber in your channel… you’re doing a good job. The more you separate from other similar channels, the better.

I’m a stats guy and clearly I would be the first to support your statement about offensive efficiency. However, saying that one should avoid long 2’s at all costs sounds a bit shortsighted. The inefficiency of long 2’s was documented almost 20 years ago and still not a single coach as decided to get rid of them because they provide spacing. Things are not so simple, and I don’t see Houston dominating the league precisely. 

It may sound a bit harsh but maybe you tried to explain it for people who really don’t know much about basketball.

[Numbers_CruncherParticipant]

Well done once again Daniel!!!! Sure this isn’t ground breaking stuff, but it is very interesting and very factual.

Perhaps if you diverged into talking about TS% you might be able to better prove your point. 

LaMarcus Aldridge had a career low 50 TS%, but at the same time, he had a career high 22.6% usage rate. 

You make very good videos!!!!!

 

 

  

[Numbers_CruncherParticipant]

Well done once again Daniel!!!! Sure this isn’t ground breaking stuff, but it is very interesting and very factual.

Perhaps if you diverged into talking about TS% you might be able to better prove your point. 

LaMarcus Aldridge had a career low 50 TS%, but at the same time, he had a career high 22.6% usage rate. 

You make very good videos!!!!!

 

 

  

[TimberTrollParticipant]

Not surprising at all to here Ricky Rubio as a top 3 worst long 2 shooter. Though, it concerns me that you mentioned Thaddeus Young as your 5th worst!!!!! Not sure how much I want him in Minnesota now?

[TimberTrollParticipant]

Not surprising at all to here Ricky Rubio as a top 3 worst long 2 shooter. Though, it concerns me that you mentioned Thaddeus Young as your 5th worst!!!!! Not sure how much I want him in Minnesota now?

[The8thDeadlySinParticipant]

Daniel, I have been subscribed to your channel for a long time. I was one of the first 25 to do so.. I love the vids..

In this particular video, I think you are over analyzing stats. There is the old saying “Numbers don’t lie” and while that is true, numbers can be deceiving. I don’t think guys should opt for more 3s versus more mid range.. I think just the opposite.. I believe that players should spend more time in these areas because in todays game, it is an underutilized area of the floor, just like the 3 feet behind the basket but still on the floor (a discussion for another time). My view:

The mid range game is not practiced like the 3 point game.. Kids, from the time they can hold a basketball, want to shoot 3s.. This shouldn’t require much explaining.. If a shot is practiced more, it becomes more efficient.

The mid range game is played with much tighter defense than the 3 point game.. I don’t understand why, maybe its a hand checking thing, but when a player is inside the 3 point line, his defender is suddenly closer… There is more attention give to players in this range. I suppose it makes sense that the closer to the rim a player is the better chance they have of making a shot so defense is just naturally tighter?

A much higher percentage of mid range shots are taken off the dribble and in desperation. A guy beats his man off the dribble but doesn’t want to challenge the 7 footer in the paint so he shoots off balance and with a guy on his hip.. Most 3 point shots are set shots.. No movement.. Simply catch and shoot.. Less movement means less room for error..

I really appreciate all the time put into these vids. You’re doing a great job. Keep up the good work.

[The8thDeadlySinParticipant]

Daniel, I have been subscribed to your channel for a long time. I was one of the first 25 to do so.. I love the vids..

In this particular video, I think you are over analyzing stats. There is the old saying “Numbers don’t lie” and while that is true, numbers can be deceiving. I don’t think guys should opt for more 3s versus more mid range.. I think just the opposite.. I believe that players should spend more time in these areas because in todays game, it is an underutilized area of the floor, just like the 3 feet behind the basket but still on the floor (a discussion for another time). My view:

The mid range game is not practiced like the 3 point game.. Kids, from the time they can hold a basketball, want to shoot 3s.. This shouldn’t require much explaining.. If a shot is practiced more, it becomes more efficient.

The mid range game is played with much tighter defense than the 3 point game.. I don’t understand why, maybe its a hand checking thing, but when a player is inside the 3 point line, his defender is suddenly closer… There is more attention give to players in this range. I suppose it makes sense that the closer to the rim a player is the better chance they have of making a shot so defense is just naturally tighter?

A much higher percentage of mid range shots are taken off the dribble and in desperation. A guy beats his man off the dribble but doesn’t want to challenge the 7 footer in the paint so he shoots off balance and with a guy on his hip.. Most 3 point shots are set shots.. No movement.. Simply catch and shoot.. Less movement means less room for error..

I really appreciate all the time put into these vids. You’re doing a great job. Keep up the good work.

[drk3351Participant]

 You made some good points, but my arguement to most of that would simply be the stats. Anyway thanks for being a long time subscriber I really appreciate it.

[drk3351Participant]

 You made some good points, but my arguement to most of that would simply be the stats. Anyway thanks for being a long time subscriber I really appreciate it.

[BothTeamsPlayedHardParticipant]

A few problems:

The first and most pronounced problem is that you are making the assumption that on any given possession a team can get either "a shot" or "the shot" it wants. Nobody is going to make the argument that Player X pulling up to take  a contested 17-footer with plenty of time on the shot clock is good offensive basketball. The problem rises that an NBA team has 24 seconds to get up a shot. It is enough time to get an initial look (run a man off a single-double, high screen-and-roll, kick it inside to the low post, etc). You want the defense to react and change shape. There are plenty of possessions in a basketball game where the pass off the initial look does not result in a clean catch. Guys are out of sync and a play breaks down. Balls get poked out. The ball ends up in the hands of someone who either cannot shoot or cannot create for himself (the guys whose limitations get passed off as inefficiency on their more skilled teammates). Heck, sometimes the defense is just executing better than the offense. The team now  has less than 10 seconds to get up a shot. These are not an insignificant number of possessions. Sure, well-run offenses see them happen less often, but still far from rare. The old parting shot that was taken at the triangle offense in Chicago was that when the triangle failed to create a shot, they gave it to Jordan and he created a shot and that made the offense magical. When this happens, though, we are no longer discussing the difference between a 43 percent chance of getting 2 points or 35 percent of getting 3 points. It is get a shot up or the ball is going the other way with nothing to show for it. This is why there is value to having a good "bad shot" taker on the floor, especially when he knows when it is his time to try and save a bad possession and when to trust the offense. Are you more likely to get a forced long 2 in a possession under duress? Yes. Do I know how much that skews the numbers? I do not, but for guys who are taking unassisted 15-19 footers, I would certainly think it would be a notable amount. LeBron often gets criticized for his "settling" for mid-range and long 2s, but often they are at the end of clocks where it is not exactly "settling." No percentage points are taken off the other four guys on the floor who also played a role in that bad possession, but when taking a big picture look at building a team that has to be a part of the focus.

Secondly, spacing provides more long-term value to an offense than the net points of any one possession. The ability to spread out an opposing team and take them out of their comfort zone is worth more than the difference in expected return of a given shot. It impacts the possessions where the long 2 shot does not appear. When Roy Hibbert, Marc Gasol, or Joakim Noah are forced to step out onto the perimeter, it is not just in the actual shooting numbers of the man he is guarding that the value appears. It is an opportunity to make good team defenses into a collection of individual defenders, which is always good for the offense. One should not be chasing abstract ideals in the real world. It involves imperfect players and far from ideal circumstances, and the job is to work to make the best of the players and circumstances. Yes, I would love nothing more than for LeBron James to take every shot, every possession, from inside the restricted circle of the paint. I think my team wins when that happens. It is not realistic.

LaMarcus Aldridge is the most noted current player who is a really good shooter, but his range taps out at a step inside the arc. Nitpicking over his percentages does not do him, or the Portland offense, justice. If the opposing  big man is pulled away, everyone in that offense benefits. The typical structure for how teams help defensively is thrown off when the shape is changed. If the big man doesn’t step out at him on long 2s, the shots turn into free throws for him. If a team puts a smaller player on him, he goes down to the block and gets his work in down there. Regardless as to the distance, it is about creating  quality possessions and quality looks. Whether Aldridge has a direct result in a given basket or not, the offense benefits from the difficulty other teams have in matching up with him. Having skilled players, putting them in a position to succeed, and having them play to the strengths of one another is the best policy. If you look back on that defense-free series between Houston and Portland, the contrast in this school of thought was on display. If Portland was wrong and Houston was right, and there was a definitive schematic advantage at play, it should have revealed itself over a seven game series. It simply was not the case. 

[BothTeamsPlayedHardParticipant]

A few problems:

The first and most pronounced problem is that you are making the assumption that on any given possession a team can get either "a shot" or "the shot" it wants. Nobody is going to make the argument that Player X pulling up to take  a contested 17-footer with plenty of time on the shot clock is good offensive basketball. The problem rises that an NBA team has 24 seconds to get up a shot. It is enough time to get an initial look (run a man off a single-double, high screen-and-roll, kick it inside to the low post, etc). You want the defense to react and change shape. There are plenty of possessions in a basketball game where the pass off the initial look does not result in a clean catch. Guys are out of sync and a play breaks down. Balls get poked out. The ball ends up in the hands of someone who either cannot shoot or cannot create for himself (the guys whose limitations get passed off as inefficiency on their more skilled teammates). Heck, sometimes the defense is just executing better than the offense. The team now  has less than 10 seconds to get up a shot. These are not an insignificant number of possessions. Sure, well-run offenses see them happen less often, but still far from rare. The old parting shot that was taken at the triangle offense in Chicago was that when the triangle failed to create a shot, they gave it to Jordan and he created a shot and that made the offense magical. When this happens, though, we are no longer discussing the difference between a 43 percent chance of getting 2 points or 35 percent of getting 3 points. It is get a shot up or the ball is going the other way with nothing to show for it. This is why there is value to having a good "bad shot" taker on the floor, especially when he knows when it is his time to try and save a bad possession and when to trust the offense. Are you more likely to get a forced long 2 in a possession under duress? Yes. Do I know how much that skews the numbers? I do not, but for guys who are taking unassisted 15-19 footers, I would certainly think it would be a notable amount. LeBron often gets criticized for his "settling" for mid-range and long 2s, but often they are at the end of clocks where it is not exactly "settling." No percentage points are taken off the other four guys on the floor who also played a role in that bad possession, but when taking a big picture look at building a team that has to be a part of the focus.

Secondly, spacing provides more long-term value to an offense than the net points of any one possession. The ability to spread out an opposing team and take them out of their comfort zone is worth more than the difference in expected return of a given shot. It impacts the possessions where the long 2 shot does not appear. When Roy Hibbert, Marc Gasol, or Joakim Noah are forced to step out onto the perimeter, it is not just in the actual shooting numbers of the man he is guarding that the value appears. It is an opportunity to make good team defenses into a collection of individual defenders, which is always good for the offense. One should not be chasing abstract ideals in the real world. It involves imperfect players and far from ideal circumstances, and the job is to work to make the best of the players and circumstances. Yes, I would love nothing more than for LeBron James to take every shot, every possession, from inside the restricted circle of the paint. I think my team wins when that happens. It is not realistic.

LaMarcus Aldridge is the most noted current player who is a really good shooter, but his range taps out at a step inside the arc. Nitpicking over his percentages does not do him, or the Portland offense, justice. If the opposing  big man is pulled away, everyone in that offense benefits. The typical structure for how teams help defensively is thrown off when the shape is changed. If the big man doesn’t step out at him on long 2s, the shots turn into free throws for him. If a team puts a smaller player on him, he goes down to the block and gets his work in down there. Regardless as to the distance, it is about creating  quality possessions and quality looks. Whether Aldridge has a direct result in a given basket or not, the offense benefits from the difficulty other teams have in matching up with him. Having skilled players, putting them in a position to succeed, and having them play to the strengths of one another is the best policy. If you look back on that defense-free series between Houston and Portland, the contrast in this school of thought was on display. If Portland was wrong and Houston was right, and there was a definitive schematic advantage at play, it should have revealed itself over a seven game series. It simply was not the case. 

[Author]

Posts