Robert Wilson said:
thebrandonlamar said:
Our local HS coach where my son just graduated coaches the same way (I coach the JV and varsity in the summer so I coach the same way too). You score in the paint or you shoot from 3, those are the options. It's not as novel as it once was.
I can appreciate that from an analytics standpoint if you isolate just production, all things being equal. I think what that misses is that you're no longer forcing the defense to defend the entire floor. You eliminate the mid-range shot from your game, and your analytics over time are going to change based on defensive adjustments.
Not really. By spacing shooters corner to corner and the threat of the drive from all spots the defense is forced to cover the entire floor. Especially when you can use ball screens to get favorable matchups on the perimeter. Defenses can try to gimmick and explicitly give up the midrange. Recall, Gonzaga got our lead down to 10 before half in the National Championship game with their spread out 3-2. It took us half a dozen possessions to figure it out, but then Macio Teague settled in around the foul line and put an end to that strategy. Mark Few didn't try it in the second half.
The weakness with giving up the midrange is that a good shooting team will make you pay at the three point line but it will absolutely crush you in the midrange. So you are already forced to defend it by virtue of defending all the way out to the three point line.
If what you're saying is that the midrange is becoming undervalued and some guys will moneyball value out of the midrange, well, SGA combined the midrange with his foul merchant ways to an MVP Award. I don't know if it is as effective without the quick whistle.
My kids' club program is run by a high school coaching staff and they've been preaching "no long twos, threes and layups are what we want" since my youngest was in fourth grade. So my guess is this has been the mantra on the high school coaches convention/clinics for years.
