I was watching television the other day and two media types were debating how good a shooter a particular player is. They were debating range, statistics and were comparing him to other players. Some interesting points came out. So interesting that I think all players should understand them.
What Is a Good Shooter?
Before you become a good shooter, you have to determine what a good shooter is. Is it someone who has perfect form? J. J. Redick of the Orlando Magic is a textbook shooter. He had a great career in college but can’t get off the bench in the NBA. Apparently, his textbook form did not make him a good enough shooter to get him on the court.
For my money, a good shooter is one who puts the ball in the basket. Is Shaquille O’Neal a good shooter? Based upon his shooting percentage, I would say that he is. How about LeBron James? He is a great scorer but only shoots 30% from beyond the 3-point line. However, his overall shooting percentage is 50%. I would say that Lebron is a good shooter.
I think that studying these 3 players will give you a key as to how to be a better shooter.
The Key
How can Shaq be a good shooter? He can’t make a basket beyond 10 feet. You are right. However, have you seen him take a shot from beyond 10 feet? I know I never have. Why should he when he can be more effective and make a big percentage of his shots inside 10 feet?
If LeBron shoots 50% from the floor while only shooting 30% from beyond the 3, what must his shooting percentage be from inside the 3?
The reason why both of these players can be called good shooters is because a majority of the shots they take are shots they can make. That is the key to being a good shooter.
I think a good shooter is one who puts the ball in the basket. I don’t care where it is shot from. If the shot doesn’t go in, it doesn’t count.
J. J. Redick is a pure shooter with great form who takes a majority of his shots from long range. If it doesn’t go in, it doesn’t count. The result is that Redick is a career 41% shooter.
Become a Better Shooter Today
All things being equal, meaning that you understand that you have to work on your shot every day. To truly become a good shooter you have to get in hundreds, possibly thousands, of repetitions to ingrain your fundamentals. You know that the more you practice, the more consistent you will be. But none of that matters unless you take shots that you can make.
Making a couple of long ones might make you feel good, they may make the fans ooh and aah, but you have to decide if you can make enough shots to be good at it? If not, take fewer. Take more shots that you can make.
If you want to be a better shooter over time, develop a workout program that will give you enough repetitions and enough work to make you consistent. Surely, that should be a part of every player’s routine. If you want to become a better shooter today, take only shots you can make.
To view coaching products from Don Kelbick, including The Attack & Counter Skill Development System – DVDs & eBook, go to Don Kelbick Products.
For more information on Don Kelbick, go to www.DonKelbickBasketball.com.
If someone shoots 2 pointers with 50%, he makes 1 point in every shot. If Redick shoots 3 pointers with 40%, he makes 1.2 points in every shot. So Redick is the better shooter. He’s coach just can’t give enough looks for him with their plays.
JJ Redick is a better shooter than both Shaq and Lebron. But Shaq & Lebron are better scorers.
This is just my interpretation of the article. I don’t think we want to delve into the JJ vs. Shaq comment too critically, the point is to take shots that you can make. Don’t try to be things you’re not.
Great point, West. You definitely need to measure a player’s point per shot (excluding free throws) or effective field goal percentage. I think you also need to measure this for the type of shot each player takes. Attacking the rim – mid-range jump shots – 3-pointers, etc.
http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/field-goals/sort/shootingEfficiency
Gorat’s a way better shooter than Redick…ha!
The great thing about pullup jumpers off of penetration and taking it all the way to the hoop makes the defense work much harder. Increases the opportunities for free throws.This is in addition to being a higher precentage shot. Later in the game this results in a worn down defense, and you begin to get even better looks at the basket.
Not necessarily a JJ Redick fan, but a little harsh to say he can’t get oof the bench in the NBA. He’s averaging 12 a game this season. That’s a lot of points sitting on the bench. Bottom line…..improvement in any fundamental, including shooting, requires dedication and discipline to practice, practice, practice.
UMMM…not all middle schoolers can dunk!
@Duane – they might not can dunk but they can shoot lay-ups and don’t have to shoot 3’s just because they are open.
As for shooter vs scorer, I hate that terminology – if you can shoot you can score. In my opinion, you’re either a good shooter and scorer or your not. If you’re scoring lots of points, but shooting a low percentage that doesn’t make you a good scorer – it makes you a liability.
Bottom line is if you’re 50% from 2 and 33% from 3 then you’re effective in my opinion.
And to Joe – thanks for the article – it’s very accurate and I will print off to give to my players!
Good article right idea and several comments that are all right on. I think I would change shooter to scorer, doesn’t matter if it is Shaq or JJ, but I think it should be better scorer. I agree with Dustin in that you are not a good scorer if it takes you 20 shots to get 20 points, but that is where the FG% comes into effect. I do think there is a difference between a scorer and a shooter. I coach high school varsity boy’s and I have had several good scorers that couldn’t shoot a lick. I have had several shooters that could not score the same amount of points because they could not create their own shot, but if I needed someone to hit a 3 at the end of a game, I am going to my shooter not my scorer.
I wrote this article a few years ago, before JJ Reddick became an effective NBA player.
I write articles for a reason, because I like to spur discussion and thought. Apparently, in this article, I have not done that. This article is not about whether JJ is a good player or whether Shaq (who is retired now) can dunk. Nor is it about whether it is more effective to shoot 3s or 2s or what is a shooter and what is a scorer.
This article is simply about one thing; You will be a better shooter if you take shots you can make as opposed to taking ones you can’t. That is it!
By the way, if you feel it is better to sacrifice shooting percentages in favor of an additional point (e.g. 50% from 2 is as effective as 33% from 3), you will have to tell me what happens to the additional offensive opportunities that are are provided for the other team that the additional missed shots create before I buy that theory.
“Bottom line is if you’re 50% from 2 and 33% from 3 then you’re effective in my opinion”
Hey Don I think what he is saying is that if your overall is 50% from 2 and 33% from 3 then you are an effective player and that I would agree.
Tony
I understand what is being proposed. However, statistics don’t exist in a vacuum and must be related to other actions for them to become valid. Because of that reason, I don’t agree with the premiss that a 50% from 2 has the same effectiveness as a 33% shooter from 3.
Just using the number for ease in this discussion, in 100 shots, using those percentages, the 2-point shooter scores 100 points and the 3-point shooter scores 99 points. It may not seem like much of a difference, but the rules say you only have to win by 1. Using those rules, the 3-point shooter is a loser.
However, that really is not the issue that turns me on the discussion, this is. Over those 100 shots, the 3 point shooter allows for 17 additional rebound opportunities. Comparing that to a mean, valid (based on sample size) rebound statistic for a game, the defense would get a significant percentage of those rebounds. Those rebounds turn into additional offensive opportunities which, if converted into points at a mean rate, would put the 3-point shooter’s team at a significant disadvantage. That is not taking into account the effect that those increased offensive opportunities would have on fouls, both personal and team, possibly creating even a greater disadvantage. It is entirely possible that the other team shoots 50% because of some of those extra opportunities (such as run outs for layups) but the sum total still comes out as a loser for the 3-point team.
I also understand that my definition of effectiveness might be different than yours. If the object of the game is to win, I am not saying that 3s don’t have their place, I just don’t think that trading a higher percentage of 2s for a lower percentage of 3s translates into “more effective” when it comes to the way the game is played.
The fact of the matter is, be they 2s or 3s, long jump shots or dunks, you only get points when the ball goes in the basket. For that reason, you will always be a better shooter taking shots you can make than taking shots that you can’t. That is the point of the article.
When you look at 100 opportunities I can see your premise in that 1 point so I guess my theory should be adjusted to 34% for 3 pointers. My thought process has always just revolved around if you hit 1 out of 2 “2’s” your effective and if you hit 1 out of 3 “3’s” you’re effective which getting specific with your math would be 33 out of 99 “3’s”, but I wasn’t clear with that previously. As for the rebounds, we would just have to disagree because the other team gets the ball back regardless of whether or not it’s a make or miss. I do understand the thought behind runouts and of couse I do prefer layups over 3’s but by missing 3’s you’re not giving the team more opportunities because they get the ball regardless of a make or miss. Just my personal opinion though. Great article!
Dustin, you are right that the amount of opportunities is equal. But you are giving them more opportunities with a higher chance of scoring. The quality of those opportunities and the reflection of those opportunities turning into points for the opposition should not be underestimated.
There is a difference between a make and miss in regards to your defensive efficiency. On a make, you get at least a second or more to get back on defense which gives you a chance to get your defense set. Getting your defense set is half the battle against transition.
Go back and study your defensive points per possession on a 3-point miss versus a make. I bet you will see a big difference.
Also, I bet if you studied your 3-point shots vs. 2-point shots and your defensive points per possession after the shots, it would be better when you took shots closer to the basket than when you took 3-point shots.
Shots close to the basket are more likely to lead to a 4v4, 4v4, 5v4, or 5v5. Shots from further out will typically result in shots that ricochet further off of the goal which typically leads to a 3v3, 3v2, 2v1, etc. Which would you rather have if you’re on offense? I know that I would rather have the latter.
Dustin, I appreciate your comments because it makes everybody think a bit more!
By the way, I do believe in the 3-point shot and you need a good balance of inside-outside to be a good team.
Dustin
You can’t just throw out a number to justify your point. For it to be valid, you can’t just say you are going to adjust to 34%, I would say, “let me adjust to 52%” for my argument. It also seems to me that the definition of percentage is a ratio compared to 100, not 99.
But in the big picture, I don’t know how this turned into a discussion about 3s vs 2s. It is not, at least for me.
Again, the point is you get more points by taking shots you can make than you will taking shots you can’t make, regardless of where you shoot them from
The definition of a good shooter is someone who makes the shots he takes, not someone who looks good shooting them. If you can make layups but can’t make jumpers from 17′, you should take layups. If you can make shots form 17′ but not from 22′, you should take 17′ shots. It only counts if the ball goes in. Regardless of where you shoot them from.
Don,
I agree with you! My adjusting to 34% was not in an attempt to help my argument, but rather saying I understood your point and that I would need to adjust my “goal” for what I want shooters to shoot from outside the arc. I also agree with you and jeff on the opponents scoring more effectively off rebounds compared to made shots. I was simply conveying my own threshholds/goals for what I want my shooters shooting from various areas on the floor (I just didn’t convey thought concisely). I frequently use a line I’ve read in some of your other work with my team that, “the team that shoots the most lay-ups win.”
I think the difference between a good shooter and scorer is that the scorer doesn’t necessarily provide the following advantage: spreading the floor. You can bet that the other team has to account for JJ Reddick every time he is off the ball, which limits help defense. In order to be a great team, you have to have both good shooters and scorers.
I certainly agree with Paul’s point above me. Scorers collapse defenses which give shooters good looks, while shooters spread the floor and give scorers more options. That being said, the importance of shot selection should never be overlooked in any situation!
Unfortunately, your definition of a “shooter” strays from the norm. A shooter is considered a player who can do a pull up jump shot from beyond 10ft. Shaq cannot do a pull up jump shot from 4ft. Just because he shoots the ball at a higher percentage does not change the classic definition of a shooter. If you are a marksman at a range. You do not classify the person closer to the target with higher accuracy a better shooter, the person behind him who is in the general range of the target is considered the better shooter.
It all boils down to this: The team play or the overall game plan must be designed for the player/s who can make the shot.
I coming in on this a little late…. but for those of us who coach… I for one told my players this…. don’t take shots that you don’t work on in practice AND cant make in practice. Play to your strengths. I hated the 18 foot shot, either become a GOOD 3 point shooter or take it to the hole and finish or become a pull up jump shooter from 16′ on in.
IF you’re NOT a shooter, then rebound and put it back in, know your role. As Don puts it… ” there are NO style points in the game ” If you cant make the shot from where you receive the ball, get it to someone who can score. I’ve seen a lot of teams run the dribble drive that just love to jack it up… who cares, IF You cant make the 3 or just inside the arc….. doesn’t make any difference how many shots you take…. remember, the more bad shots you take the more opportunities you give the other team.
One coach told me his team took 87 shots one game… 87! They scored 59 points, our average was usually in the high 50s and shot around 45 shots… I like my shot selection a lot better. JMO
I am 78 and still a pure shooter! Look at my website and see my form.