This page contains affiliate links. We may earn a commission if you purchase through these links, at no extra cost to you.
DeMar DeRozan catches the ball at the elbow, sixteen feet out, a great defender right there — by every analytics department's math this is a bad shot worth about 0.84 points, and DeRozan has been hitting it at 49% for a decade. This article examines the analytics case against the mid-range (a league-average two yields 0.84 points versus 1.08 for a three and 1.26 at the rim) and then shows where that math goes wrong: it treats shots as independent events when shot value depends on the whole offensive ecosystem. As the league abandoned the mid-range — attempts down 58% since 2010 — defenses stopped contesting it, so elite mid-range shooters like Durant (52%) and Leonard (50%) now produce points-per-attempt rivaling or beating a three. It explains the playoff factor, Kawhi's 2019 case study, and why the best 2026 offenses are full-spectrum, not three-point-dependent.
The Analytics Case Against Mid-Range
The math is simple, and on its surface, irrefutable:
- Mid-range two-pointer at league-average efficiency (42%): 0.84 points per attempt
- Three-pointer at league average (36%): 1.08 points per attempt
- Shot at the rim at league average (63%): 1.26 points per attempt
By this logic, the mid-range is the worst shot in basketball. Teams should only attack the rim or shoot threes. The 15-20 foot wasteland in between should be a transit zone — used for passing and driving, never for shooting.
This is exactly what happened. Mid-range attempts league-wide have declined by 58% since 2010. The Houston Rockets under D'Antoni and Morey took the philosophy to its extreme, banning mid-range shots from their offensive vocabulary entirely. The logic seemed bulletproof.
It wasn't.
Where the Math Goes Wrong
The anti-mid-range argument contains a critical flaw: it treats all shots as interchangeable, independent events. In reality, shot selection exists in a dynamic system where the value of any shot depends on the entire offensive ecosystem.
When every team in the league stops shooting mid-range jumpers, defenses adapt. They pack the paint to contest rim attempts. They extend to the three-point line to contest threes. And the mid-range area — the 15-20 foot zone that analytics deemed worthless — becomes the most open real estate on the basketball court.
The mid-range is the shot that gets more valuable the less everyone else shoots it. It's an economic principle disguised as a basketball problem: when everyone abandons an asset, the few who keep investing find outsized returns.
The numbers prove it. Players who maintained their mid-range skills shoot it at percentages dramatically above league average — specifically because defenses have deprioritized contesting it:
- DeMar DeRozan: 49% from mid-range
- Kevin Durant: 52% from mid-range
- Kawhi Leonard: 50% from mid-range
- Shai Gilgeous-Alexander: 48% from mid-range
At 49%, DeRozan's mid-range two produces 0.98 points per attempt — virtually identical to a league-average three. At 52%, Durant's mid-range two produces 1.04 points per attempt — better than a league-average three. The analytics argument that mid-range is always inferior only holds for the average NBA player. The best mid-range shooters aren't average.
The Playoff Factor
Here's where the mid-range game goes from "undervalued" to "essential."
In the regular season, teams can get by on volume three-point shooting and rim attacks. The pace is fast, defensive intensity fluctuates, and transition opportunities are plentiful. But the playoffs are a different sport. Defensive intensity spikes. Pace drops. Half-court execution becomes everything. And the three-point shot — which analytics says should be the foundation of every offense — becomes significantly harder to generate.
In the last five NBA Finals, the team with better mid-range efficiency won the series four out of five times. Not a coincidence. Playoff defenses are specifically designed to take away three-point shots and rim pressure. When those options are contested or removed, the ability to score from mid-range becomes the pressure-release valve that keeps offenses functional.
Kawhi Leonard's 2019 championship run is the defining case study. Leonard shot 52% from mid-range during that playoff run, and his mid-range scoring was often the only thing keeping Toronto's offense alive against elite defensive teams. Against Philadelphia's length and Milwaukee's wall-off defense, the Raptors' three-point shooting and rim attacks were severely limited. Leonard's mid-range pull-up — the shot analytics says not to take — was the shot that won a championship.
The Full-Spectrum Future
The most effective NBA offenses in 2026 aren't three-point-dependent or mid-range-dependent. They're full-spectrum: they attack the rim, shoot threes, and exploit mid-range opportunities based on what the defense provides. The Boston Celtics, Denver Nuggets, and Oklahoma City Thunder — the three best offenses this season — all rank in the top half of the league in mid-range frequency.
The analytics revolution correctly identified that the average NBA player shouldn't settle for mid-range jumpers. That insight was genuine and valuable. But it was a prescription for the average, applied as a prohibition for everyone — and the best mid-range shooters are anything but average.
The mid-range game isn't dead. It went underground. And in a league where every team is fighting for inches at the rim and behind the arc, the players who can score from the space everyone else abandoned are discovering what contrarian investors have always known: the most profitable territory is the territory nobody else wants.
