Always frustrating the idea that the midrange was EVER a bad idea. A lot of the folks that originally were interested in analytics came from a real place of honesty. I think offenses in the 2000s were a bit predictable, and too many contested shots were taken on the regular.

There were supreme scoring talents that would pass up a wide open 24 footer, for a highly contested 22 footer.

You didn't need math or analytics to know that was a bad shot. But coaching was resistent. "Move in, get a better shot" (also be like mike)

The mentality stuck.

To break out of that mentality, and let basketball players the true freedom to play their own game analytics helped this. The cold hard facts saying "look you're making this shot 34% of the time, where as the 3 you're making 38% of the time because it's open"

But analytics has flat out gone to a horrible place. The combined stats (PIPM, VORP, PER, ROP, SRO, TIA, STFU, LOL) never made any sense, they've always been trash, and then there were people saying midrange shots are bad when - the greatest scorer of all time lived there.

You can't say "that's a bad shot" then watch MJ throw up 38ppg on 60+TS%. I'm sorry. the ideas are conflicting. But why?

Because as every hooper has said 8000 times, basketball isn't math. It's a game - you have to beat the opponent and it is CONTESTED shots that are bad

As teams began to embrace the three point shot more and more, the original concept got lost, which is a concept that has existed forever in basketball: spread the court. You spread the court to get the best shot in basketball: the layup.

You can ask coaches in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and they'll all say the same: We need to get shots at the basket. There's various ways to do that, and Kareem being 7'2 and letting go of the ball mere feet away from the rim is one way: cuts to the basket are another -

But at the end of the day, a perfectly executed offensive plan, would theoretically allow a team to take 100 open layups at the rim.

In other words, steph curry on his best day can't out shoot that.

Even today, as teams embrace the 3s - Kevin Durant and James Harden virtually obliterate "3 > 2 !!!11oneone" on a game by game basis. Who has the higher efg%? Durant. Who creates more space on shots? Harden. Who is the more accurate shooter? Probably harden. Who shoots better? KD

Because Harden is trying to do the exact same thing that talented wings in the 2000s were doing: FORCING a bad shot.

While Jerry Stackhouse was trying to be MJ taking highly contested shots in the mid - James Harden is trying to 3>2 his way to victory with defenders in his face

Defenses played different in the 2000s. They were on their heels expecting the middy or drive. You could walk into an open three off the dribble with EASE.

Defenses now? Expect that. Players are working so hard to find that shot when they're passing up extremely open middies

The open middies that we see Kawhi take on the effort ironically allow Kawhi to do something every game that Harden hasn't been able to do in YEARS: Get open 3s LOL

Because the defense expects him to attack a certain away, allowing him to occasionally pull up and take that shot

It's basic basketball. If I'm dribbinling at the top of the key, and the d doesn't respect my shot? It's harder to get to the rim. If he respects it, it's easier. If he knows that I can hit from anywhere? He never knows where I'll go.

Finally - embracing the beauty of the game is not only embracing a varied offensive attack, but allowing truly great players to present their game it's entirety. Think: Devin Booker.

What's the best way to let Devin Booker play like 90's MJ and 90's Mitch Richmond?

His teammates spread the court and hit the open shots just like Charles Oakley did.

The only difference is, that Charles Oakley spot up 17 footer is a 23.5 footer.

That's ok.

Thanks. I love you.