The MidRange Winner

In "Houston's Improbable Midrange Winner", Kevin Arnovitz points out the irony in the fact that "the team that’s driven the midrange jumper out of fashion won the game on a 21-footer." The article is really more about breaking down the pick and roll plays at the end than it is about shot selection (and Arnovitz does an excellent job of that), but it did jog my brain into thinking about something: there is a big exception to the "threes, layups, and sucker shots" rule of shot selection, and that's on the last play of the game.

In the NBA, Three-point shots are better than long twos not because they are easier shots, but because of the expected value in points. The best midrange shooters shoot around 45% on long twos. That equates to about .9 points per shot (it may be ever-so-slightly more because of free throws, but it's hard to get fouled on outside shots). But since a three-point basket is, by definition, worth an extra point, you only need to hit a little less than 30% from beyond the arc to average the same amount of points. Since almost every wing player can average about 30%, and most average more than that (so far this year, SFs and PGs average about 35%, and SGs about 36%), the three is a better shot, even if you make it less often. Yay, math!

....except at the buzzer when the game's tied.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if you win a game by 1, 2, or 3 points. If the game is tied, and this is the last shot of the game, you can take the expected point value of a shot and throw that shit out the window. All that matters is the frequency that it goes in. If it does, you win, if it doesn't, overtime. If you are behind by 1 the math is virtually the same, you win, lose, or go home. 2 points or 3 points are irrelevant. If you are behind by 2 it changes a little bit, because arguably hitting a 3 and winning is worth more than hitting a two to go into overtime.

And obviously, the more time you leave on the clock after the shot, the more things can change. But arguably in a situation like last night's Houston/NOLA game, it all boils down to this: you want the shot with the highest FG%. From this perspective, obviously, a wide-open 16-footer is better than a wide-open three-pointer, because the former probably has a higher chance to go in and win you the game.

Loading...