Food for thought regarding the long 2

[thead]

I don't think it was an accident that Rip Hamilton had such a great career.

a great 3pt shooter will keep a defense honest.

a great shooter period will keep a team guessing.

Back to fundamentals though, a long 2 isn't necessarily my problem. A contested long 2 early in the shot clock will make me rip my hair out. Because THAT is the worst shot in the basketball.

A contested long 2 should only be shot if there is between 4 and zero seconds left on the clock. Because 5 seconds is more than enough to set up some type of screen action, or quick post up.

[Superjudge]

A contested long 2 should only be shot if there is between 4 and zero seconds left on the clock. Because 5 seconds is more than enough to set up some type of screen action, or quick post up.

I couldnt agree more!

[consmap]

I don't think it was an accident that Rip Hamilton had such a great career.

a great 3pt shooter will keep a defense honest.

a great shooter period will keep a team guessing.

Back to fundamentals though, a long 2 isn't necessarily my problem. A contested long 2 early in the shot clock will make me rip my hair out. Because THAT is the worst shot in the basketball.

A contested long 2 should only be shot if there is between 4 and zero seconds left on the clock. Because 5 seconds is more than enough to set up some type of screen action, or quick post up.

Another bad shot: a long-2 jumpshot with your foot ON the 3 point line.

Anyway, I think it's all about context. Open mid range jumpers (and any other shot) are good. When good defensive teams want to force players to take long 2s, they don't mean that they want the other team to be wide open from mid-range. Even if they want the other team to take those shots, they should still be contested.

[MrBlack]

If you crowd shooters, you open yourself up to the dribble-drive...and when your bigs rotate to help, it's either a quick dump to the open man under the basket, or a swung ball to an eventual open man behind the arc.

The article basically says that you run out/crowd a shooter behind the 3pt line, and that the big man rotation doesn't come aggressively above the restricted area. There's an example of George Hill closing on Lillard, who then dribbles past hill, while Scola stays just above the restricted area, which would hopefully discourage a drive from Lillard, and encourage a long 2, while protecting against that dish off to a cutter under the basket.

[MrBlack]

And that play, the one you describe, is allowed because players today are simply unable to hit a very basic shot.... the Guard, slipping past the screen should be ready to elevate and hit that easy shot. Calderon and Nash do it beautifully.

It's just funadamentals. Less dunking in HS, more shooting drills.

I don't think it's that players aren't able to hit a basic shot, as you describe it. It's that you have unrealistic standards for fg% on long 2's. If Dirk and Nash make them at between 41.63-43.66%, then that gives you 8.33-8.73 points per 10 of those shots. I think everyone would agree that those guys are among the best shooters ever, yet they still yield considerably less points than 3's and close to the rim shots. (A quick look at the approx median for all teams from 3 this year gives 35.9%, so 10.77 points per 10 shots, and 57.5% inside 5ft, so 11.5 points per 10 shots)

So the way I see it, the play described is allowed because you would rather give up long 2s, even to great shooters, simply because the alternative is allowing more points on average from the other higher value shot locations.

[Superjudge]

Yes, but Nash gets his 3's off spot up scenario's for the most part.

The simple fact is, IMO, that tema shave been dealt the hand of players with considerably less fundamental skill that in the past. They are far more athletic, and they are in many situations, bigger, but they aren't necessarily as savvy. Its a low point in the NBA's development. HOWEVER, this is only a dip. Soon, as with any system, the players in place will develop to the point where they will have to utilize everything they can to push the limits as the mean raises toward the limits of the group. Meaning, guys like Durant, will be the average, not the top end.

Scoring will in fact go down though....but thats another story altogether.....

[stooley]

I don't think it's that players aren't able to hit a basic shot, as you describe it. It's that you have unrealistic standards for fg% on long 2's. If Dirk and Nash make them at between 41.63-43.66%, then that gives you 8.33-8.73 points per 10 of those shots. I think everyone would agree that those guys are among the best shooters ever, yet they still yield considerably less points than 3's and close to the rim shots. (A quick look at the approx median for all teams from 3 this year gives 35.9%, so 10.77 points per 10 shots, and 57.5% inside 5ft, so 11.5 points per 10 shots)

So the way I see it, the play described is allowed because you would rather give up long 2s, even to great shooters, simply because the alternative is allowing more points on average from the other higher value shot locations.

Here's the only thing though, those percentages come from mostly playing against teams with classic defenses. As analytics drive the league towards 3 point or dunk offenses, defenses will eventually start to counter these strategies, as they should.

When they do, the long 2 becomes a much more viable option. The league is constantly in flux, and tactics adjust as necessary.

I see it a lot like an imperfect market (here comes some econ). Right now certain teams have an informational advantage and have become first adopters. The market (or league-wide strategies) will adjust until there isn't a clear cut strategy to earn profit (high efficiency points).

There's no reason why a team wouldn't leave these shooters open at the long two range right now. But if coaches start adapting to this and emphasizing these shots in practice, players really should be making these open shots at a super high clip. This will in turn force a change in defensive thinking.

[MrBlack]

I like the econ, but what I'm getting at is if players did get better at the long two to take advantage of the high availability of those shots, or their profits on those shots get higher, then wouldn't they also, at least to some extent, get better at shooting 3's, which would render the 3's still more valuable?

Put another way - if Nash makes long 2's at 43%, and currently is one of the best all-around shooters ever, then he would need to make the long 2 at 54% to equal the profit of 3's under the current league median of 35.9%. So we would need to see the league MEDIAN on long two's be 10% points higher than one of the best shooters ever, without any increase in the 3pt% of the league as a whole, in order to make those shots nearly equal in profit.

I understand why the league would get better at the long 2 as they become available, I just can't agree that it would ever shift far enough to change defensive thinking overall to something that doesn't favor the long 2.

[Axel]

I think team Defences have already adjusted. Doug Collins' 76ers (over the last few years) gave up the long 2 by design is another example.

The close out to the arc does encourage dribble drives, but once the help comes, many offences lack the ball movement to take advantage of the openings. I think this is one of the reasons the Spurs have been so successful for so long; they develop players to move the ball to the open man. A lot of teams, once they dribble past the close out, either end up with a contest floater or only one pass to the weakside corner (which used to be open, but defences have adjusted accordingly). Once the ball is in the corner, the player shoots it (because they often hear how efficient the shot is) or re-sets to the top. Very few teams have the unselfishness and ball movement ingrained into their offence to take advantage of this.

I think offensively, the times you start looking for the mid-range jumper is in shot clock, end of quarter/game situations, where the natural tendency of the defence to guard the paint and the arc can be exploited. Otherwise, the only other players who should be regularly using that range in games are bigs.

[Beaverboi]

Forgive me if the answer is in the article (I skimmed through it), but how does one defend the 3 and the paint, while leaving the long-2 open?

If you crowd shooters, you open yourself up to the dribble-drive...and when your bigs rotate to help, it's either a quick dump to the open man under the basket, or a swung ball to an eventual open man behind the arc.

Close-out hard at the 3pt line and on a blow by help defender sags, discouraging a drive to the rim and encouraging a pull-up jumper. That's what I got from the article. Seems a pretty simple strategy, especially if you are a player with not the best handles or passing ability. All of a sudden you see this open space that you're not used to seeing and your brain is telling you "mo shats!!!"

[Beaverboi]

. Less dunking in HS, more shooting drills.

Ya, but chicks don't dig 16 foot jumpshots.

[Axel]

Another big impact on the evolution of offence has been more bigs who can shoot. Stretching the defence to guard the arc creates additional holes, mostly in the mid-range area.

Here's a good article from CBS about Stretch 4's and their impact on both offence and defence (NOTE - article was written in Oct, so prior to this season).

Here's the compilation of the Stretch 4's (players playing the 4 spot for significant stretches and attempted over 100 3's last season from any position). Rudy Gay is on the chart, but his numbers were only used from his time with the Raps last season.



Another good read on how offences/defences are evolving is in this Grantland article (from April) http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...-their-offense

Dwane Casey is referenced in here as trying to run the Raptors as "one of the most aggressive help D teams."

"The NBA may still be a pick-and-roll league, but the pick-and-roll a team really wants to run might come after several different "fake" actions designed to confuse defenders or get their momentum moving in the wrong direction. Predictable offenses just aren't good enough anymore against elite competition; that's why Miami no longer runs simple LeBron James–Chris Bosh pick-and-rolls while the other three Heat players just stand around — something that happened a lot in the 2011 Finals against Dallas."

Something the Raps have sorely lacked since Bosh left, a post up player, is addressed here:
"Teams instead are using them (post ups) at the start of possessions, in order to suck that extra defender toward the ball, pass it to the other side, and get a defense scrambling until it cracks. Teams used to drive the strong side and post up there in order to score; now they're doing so in order to pass, knowing the lane will be too crowded on one side of the floor for that simpler attack. Posting up isn't a dying art; it's still enormously important, only now it's as a means to start a cascade of events all over the floor."

Simply put, offences are becoming more complex than they were a few years ago. Multiple sets and misdirection are being used to lure aggressive defences out of the position and then smart passing is used to take advantage of a D that is rotating.

[Nilanka]

Guys, I don't see anything written here on the benefits of hero ball. What gives?

[Axel]

Guys, I don't see anything written here on the benefits of hero ball. What gives?

I don't think Iverson or Kobe have written anything, hence the dearth of material.

[S.R.]

Guys, I don't see anything written here on the benefits of hero ball. What gives?