 |
|
Because it's one less point than being a few feet back and
Posted on: December 20, 2018 at 08:58:22 CT
tgr MU
Posts:
42153
Member For:
22.15 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
the shooting percentage for a mid-range jumper isn't substantially better than a three point shot. It's pretty simple math.
If the average player makes 38 percent of his shots from 16-23 feet -- shots that are still worth just two points -- and 35 percent on 3-pointers, why not eschew the long midrange jumper entirely and instead take a shot that gives you an extra point? That's essentially where the game is heading. In just six seasons, the league has gone from taking 26.9 percent of its shots from 16-23 feet to 24.5 percent. Simply, teams are learning to cut out the game's least efficient type of shot.
https://www.krossover.com/articles/death-of-the-mid-range-jumper-statistically-speaking/
If the average player makes 38 percent of his shots from 16-23 feet -- shots that are still worth just two points -- and 35 percent on 3-pointers, why not eschew the long midrange jumper entirely and instead take a shot that gives you an extra point? That's essentially where the game is heading. In just six seasons, the league has gone from taking 26.9 percent of its shots from 16-23 feet to 24.5 percent. Simply, teams are learning to cut out the game's least efficient type of shot.
https://www.krossover.com/articles/death-of-the-mid-range-jumper-statistically-speaking/
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Because it's one less point than being a few feet back and - tgr MU - 12/20 08:58:22