Is the Midrange Really Dead?
Recently, my friend Coach Chong Su shared a Facebook post that reignited my thoughts on this long-standing debate.
Analytics say the midrange is the least efficient shot in basketball. That’s why more and more modern teams are focusing almost exclusively on “paint, threes, and free throws.” Some teams have taken this to the extreme — like the Houston Rockets, who once attempted 70 threes in a single game (Jan 16, 2019 vs. the Brooklyn Nets), or last season’s Boston Celtics, who averaged 48.2 threes per game.
Let me be clear: I’m fully in support of data-driven basketball. Analytics, film breakdowns, and efficiency charts are essential tools for every serious program.
But at the same time, I believe basketball is more than just cold numbers. It’s a game with rhythm, layers, and nuance — and that’s what makes it beautiful.
So when everyone keeps saying “the midrange is dead” or “the midrange is inefficient,” maybe we should take a step back and ask: What if the midrange isn’t dead — it’s just too hard? Too hard to teach, too hard to master, too hard for most players to execute?
But in the toughest moments, when the defense takes everything else away — the midrange is often the answer.
The Data Argument
Let’s start with the numbers.
After the FIBA Asia Cup final, my friend Coach Su Chung posted a detailed breakdown of China’s shot chart. China finished second behind Australia, and the stats told a clear story:
- Paint scoring: 192 points, 1.21 points per shot (PPS)
- Three-point scoring: 189 points, 1.20 PPS
- Midrange: 58 points, just 0.83 PPS
Analytics love this. The paint and the three-point line are nearly identical in efficiency, while midrange lags far behind. As Coach Su Chung noted, international basketball is rapidly converging toward a “paint, threes, and free throws” philosophy. Anything else is considered wasted motion.
The bigger question he asked was this: Are we ready to fully embrace this model in Malaysia? Or is there still room for the midrange in modern basketball?
The Player’s Argument (DeRozan, Melo, Rudy Gay)
That question immediately reminded me of a podcast I had watched recently, 7pm in Brooklyn, hosted by Carmelo Anthony. His guest that day was DeMar DeRozan, one of the last great midrange torchbearers in the NBA. Rudy Gay was also on the mic.
DeRozan spoke about his lineage: learning footwork and angles from Kobe Bryant at 16, mastering bumps and fakes with Sam Cassell at 15, picking up the craftiness of Cuttino Mobley and Andre Miller, and later refining his one-dribble pull-up with Alex English. He described himself as a “student of the game,” combining old-school moves with his athleticism to create what he called a “cheat code.”
Melo chimed in with his own perspective. His philosophy was never about variety, but about mastery. Pick a move — a jab-step pull-up, a baseline fadeaway — and rep it until it becomes automatic. Then build a counter for every counter. That’s how he built his midrange empire.
And Rudy Gay hit on the central dilemma of modern basketball: once a defender runs you off the three-point line, what comes next? It’s not just about shooting, it’s about processing options in a split second: shoot, lob, dump-off, or kick-out. Defenses are trained to run players off the three, but never to run them off the midrange.
Their message was clear: every championship team eventually needs the midrange. No one wins a ring without it.
And Melo pointed to Shai Gilgeous-Alexander as proof. His MVP season was built on taking what the defense gave him, often punishing them in the midrange with angles, shot fakes, and pull-ups.
SGA validated that in today’s game, mastering the midrange can still carry a player to the very top.
Midrange as Decision-Making, Not Just Shooting
That conversation triggered another memory for me: an interview I did with Lukas Peng during last season’s EASL, the head of basketball operations for the Macau Black Bears. Lukas pointed out something that perfectly connects with what Rudy Gay and DeRozan were saying.
“People think attacking a closeout is simple,” he told me. “It’s not. A spot-up three is easy, anyone can take that. But once you attack the closeout, the game becomes complex. There’s help defense. You have to decide: do I pass, do I finish, do I pull up? That’s extremely hard. Most Asian players don’t have this ability. They can shoot when open, but once the closeout comes, they look lost.”
Maybe, that’s the essence of the midrange too. It’s not just a shot, it’s a decision tree. It forces you to read in real time, manipulate angles, and make defenders pay for overcommitting.
And because so few players truly master this, the numbers naturally show it as inefficient.
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Melo also made a great point in that podcast: midrange is a hard shot. If you don’t work on it, you’ll never be efficient. And nowadays, players just don’t train for it.
So here’s the paradox. Midrange is inefficient because players don’t practice it. And players don’t practice it because the data says it’s inefficient. The result is a perfect self-fulfilling prophecy:
- Data says midrange is inefficient.
- Teams stop investing in midrange practice.
- Players’ skills decline.
- Shooting percentages stay low.
- Data reconfirms the midrange is inefficient.
And round and round we go. But this loop doesn’t prove that the midrange is obsolete, it proves that development priorities shape what the data shows.
What This Means for Malaysia?
So what does all this mean for Malaysian basketball?
Lukas was right: a lot of Asian players can shoot when they’re open, but once a defender closes out, they freeze. That’s not just a skill issue, that’s a processing issue.
Basketball is more than a jump shot. We should teach players how to read defenders, use fakes, find seams, and break rotations. Those are universal basketball skills, not limited to any one zone.
And when defense take away the rim and the three, the shot that opens everything back up… is the midrange.
So the real question is: Do we want to raise players who blindly follow the data, or players who can read and react in real-time?
Efficiency can win you games, but understand the game wins championships.
Final Shot
Yes, I believe in analytics. But maybe I’m a little old-school too.
I grew up watching MJ’s fadeaways — and I still believe: The midrange isn’t dead. It’s just too hard, and most players don’t want to put in the work.
Data can explain efficiency, but it can’t measure those brilliant in-between moments — the fake that freezes a defender, the rhythm of a perfect pull-up, the step-back that unlocks an entire possession.
Every great team still needs that shot analytics tried to kill.
The only question is: who’s bold enough to master the hardest move in the game?
If this piece resonated with you, drop a comment, or send a message — I’d love to hear your take.
— Jordan
☕ If you enjoy this kind of writing and want to support my work, you can now buy me a coffee:
Every cup helps me keep telling these stories, and keep pushing the culture forward. Thank you!
