People call mid-range inefficient. Go watch Dirk's fadeaway and tell me that's not peak human movement

---

People call mid-range inefficient. Go watch Dirk's fadeaway and tell me that's not the absolute ceiling of human movement. Where's the inefficiency?

The issue was never mid-range itself — it was execution rate. Three-pointers get called "efficient" because everybody shoots them, the system designs for them, and practice time reflects that. Invest the same resources in mid-range development and the efficiency numbers change.

Today's players haven't seen prime Kobe work a mid-range set or Duncan own the elbow. They're reading a spreadsheet and calling it basketball. They're missing something they don't know they're missing.

People call mid-range inefficient. Go watch Dirk's fadeaway and tell me that's not the absolute ceiling of human movement. Where's the inefficiency?

The issue was never mid-range itself — it was execution rate. Three-pointers get called "efficient" because everybody shoots them, the system designs for them, and practice time reflects that. Invest the same resources in mid-range development and the efficiency numbers change.

Today's players haven't seen prime Kobe work a mid-range set or Duncan own the elbow. They're reading a spreadsheet and calling it basketball. They're missing something they don't know they're missing.

The mid-range defense argument is missing from most analytics discussions. A well-placed mid-range shot against a defense that overloads the perimeter can be the highest expected value shot on a given possession.

The 'against a defense that overloads the perimeter' qualifier is doing all the work in that sentence. That situation has to exist first. It doesn't exist consistently enough to rebuild an offensive philosophy around.