@ justanother
I understand that it is statistically not the most advantageous shot to take, but there are a lot of factors that go into that. Generally the shot is taken in motion decreasing the effectiveness of the shot. However, if you don't have shooters who can hit the three with regularity and the lane is shut down, it has to be a better percentage shot than what we have been doing and with the personnel that we currently have.
@ Highelite
"My main issue is that you can have both, and you can scheme for both; and neither will devalue the other."
Exactly!
To both, I think I saw a shot chart someplace and the number of midrange shots made was 4 of 9. I would argue that given the number of shots taken and the percentages made the other night, I think one would be hard pressed to say that it wouldn't have been a valuable tool. If nothing else it would have given Kentucky something else to defend.
My points isn't to rely solely on the mid range, but to use it as a weapon in the arsenal. We have not been a historically strong three point shooting team. So, to rely on that tool when our strengths lie elsewhere, seems like a recipe for disaster.