Next up in my series of introducing my marginal scoring rating metric is the mid-range shot. And yes, Dirk Nowitzki is the best. But wait there's more. You may find it interesting to know that Andrea Bargnani is the second highest rated center. Ooohh. If you think that's fascinating, then read on after the jump.

In my last post, I introduced a new marginal scoring stat (PSAMS) and posted the formulas and ratings for inside scoring. Here, I will introduce the metric for evaluating mid-range shooting, which I define as any shot in between 3 ft from the rim and the 3-pt line. I lump all these shots together because, according to Hoopdata, the averages for 3-9 ft (39%), 10-15 ft (39.3%), and 16-23 ft (39.4%), are very similar (especially compared to the averages for inside scoring, 64.1%, and 3-pt shooting, 53.8%).

Recall (or learn for the first time) that the league-average effective FG% (eFG%) is about 50% (to be exact, it's 49.8%). The fact that the average mid-range shot is actually worse than the, uh, average average shot(?), makes evaluation somewhat trickier, and likely somewhat more open to challenge. Here's why. In theory, players hurt their teams when they take mid-range shots. Unless you're Dirk Nowitzki, that is. Among the 150 or so players in my database (>40+ games, >25+ mpg), Dirk is the only one who shot better than 50% from mid-range. As I've written previously (here and here), I believe that mid-range shots are an important and inevitable part of the game, and that, because somebody has to take those shots, you just want to make sure your best shooter is the one doing it. If you think about it this way, you begin to realize that the players who are given the responsibility risk hurting their overall averages. To be sure, some players may force too many of those shots, but it's very difficult to know which shots are necessary (after all, they don't tell us!). Therefore, what I've come up with for the metric actually is a bit of a hedge, because it averages the two philosophies. In both philosophies, players who shoot less than their "fair share" of mid-range shots (defined by the average mid-range FGA for their position) are penalized for their "undershooting". How this is done will be explained a bit later. Where the philosophies differ is their handling of players who shoot more than the average number of mid-range shots for their position. How do we handle those extra shots?

Philosophy I: All "extra" mid-range FGA are shots taken away from teammates who would have taken average ("better") shots, i.e. shots that should be compared to the league-average 50%.

Philosophy II: All "extra" mid-range FGA are not really extra at all, and would have still been taken by a teammate. Therefore, these shots should also be compared to the average mid-range shot efficiency of ~39%.

You can see how these are two very different viewpoints, right? In fact, I would argue it's one of the central debates of basketball fandom, one that separates Kobe Bryant (and Monta Ellis) fans from their detractors, for example. There's really no good way right now to resolve the debate, so for now, I'm going to calculate the rating using both philosophies, and then take the simple average between them. Having said that, I think the final results will seem reasonable to folks on both sides of the argument.

As in my last post, I will use a couple of players to illustrate the actual calculation. First up is a no-brainer, Dirk Nowitzki. Dirk averaged 13.8 mid-range FGA per 40 minutes with 50.4% efficiency. Here's how I calculate his rating according to Philosophy I:

PSAMS{I} = 2*(13.3 - 8.6)*(50.4-49.8) + 2*8.6*(50.4-40.2) = 1.78

The first term on the right represents the "extra" mid-range shots, which according to Philosophy I, are compared to the league-average average shot efficiency (I know, try saying that 10 times fast). The second term represents the average number of mid-range shots (for the PF position), which are being compared to the average mid-range shot efficiency for PF. Follow all that? Here's how Dirk rates according to Philosophy II:

PSAMS{II} = 2*13.3*(50.4-40.2) = 2.71

That one is simple, right? Just compare all his shots to the average mid-range efficiency for PF. Dirk's final rating is then simply the average of the two, in this case, 2.25.

Now we need to look at a player that shoots fewer than the average mid-range FGA. Arron Afflalo is one such "undershooter", taking only 3.8 mid-range FGA per 40 compared to the average 6.7 for the SG position. Here's how I calculate the rating for Afflalo (there is no need to distinguish between the two philosophies):

PSAMS=2*3.8*(44.7-39.4)-2*(6.7-3.8)*(49.8-39.4) = -0.23

The first term here represents the shots that Afflalo did take compared to the average mid-range efficiency for SG. The second term represents a "penalty" for undershooting. The idea is that the shots that he didn't take would be shifted to teammates who otherwise would have taken better shots. Therefore, the efficiency differential (49.8-39.4) represents the difference between an average shot and an average mid-range shot. The reason I believe we need such a penalty is that if players simply "opt out" of these types of shots, their PSAMS would be 0, which would make them appear to be better shooters than about half the players at their position. Any system that rewards a player for not shooting at all doesn't make sense to me. You can't win games by opting out of shooting. With the groundwork laid out, let's get to the ratings. Here are the top and bottom 25, respectively.

Top 25 Mid-Range Shooters

The FGA and FG% are for mid-range shots.

Bottom 25 Mid-Range Shooters

Some of the names on this list may surprise you, but before bugging out, make sure to look at their FGA and FG%, and compare those to the players on the Top 25 list, and keep the two philosophies in mind.

Here are the ratings broken down by position (ORNK is overall ranking and PRNK is ranking by position):

PG

SG

SF

PF

C

Hey, Andrea Bargnani fans, this might be the one stat you can hang on your hat.

Next post will wrap up with 3-pt shooting and overall rankings combining all three shot distances into a single metric.