🇨🇳🇬🇧 This is a bilingual weekly newsletter.

👇 Scroll to bottom for ENGLISH VERSION

Click here for web version

中距離已經過時了嗎？最近朋友莊樹聰教練在 Facebook 的一條貼文，再次激起了我對這個課題的想法。

數據派說，中距離是最低效的出手，所以現代籃球越來越多專注於「內線、三分、罰球」的球隊，甚至出現了像 Houston Rockets 這種可以單場出手70次三分球（2019年1月16日對陣布魯克林籃網），或者上賽季的 Boston Celtics 場均出手48.2次三分球的極端球隊。

先說明一下，我絕對支持以數據驅動的籃球，數據分析、影片分析是每一支球隊的基本配置。但與此同時，我也相信籃球不僅僅是一堆冷冰冰的數據而已，它應該有不同的元素，這樣的籃球才精彩。

當大家都說中距離已死、中距離是低效的出手時，我們是否可以從另外一個角度來看待這個問題：中距離只是太難練，太難用，大部分球員根本沒辦法駕馭。但等到真的打硬仗、對手什麼都封住的時候，能解決問題的，往往就是中距離。

我們今天就來探討一下這個課題。

數據怎麼說

先從數據講起。FIBA男籃亞洲盃決賽後，我朋友樹聰教練分享了一張中國隊的投籃分布圖。中國最後拿到亞軍，輸給澳洲，數據很誠實：

禁區得分：192分，每次出手平均（Point Per Shot，PPS） 1.21 分
三分球得分：189分，PPS 1.20 分
中距離得分：58分，PPS 只有 0.83 分

這種數據最符合數據派的胃口。禁區跟三分的效率差不多高，而中距離明顯落後。正如樹聰教練所說，現在國際籃球愈來愈偏向「禁區 + 三分 + 罰球」的打法，其他的通通都被認為是在浪費進攻。

但他也問了一個關鍵問題：在馬來西亞，我們真的準備好要全盤接受這套打法嗎？還是中距離還有它的生存空間？

從球員角度看（Melo、DeRozan、Rudy Gay）

這問題讓我想到前陣子聽的一集 Podcast《7pm in Brooklyn》，主持人是 Carmelo Anthony，那一集來賓是 DeMar DeRozan，NBA 中距離的代表人物之一，還有 Rudy Gay。

DeRozan 分享了他的成長過程：16歲從 Kobe 那裡學腳步和角度，15歲跟 Sam Cassell 練假動作跟對抗身體接觸，再從 Cuttino Mobley 跟 Andre Miller 那邊學一些「老油條」技巧，後來又跟 Alex English 打磨他的「一次運球急停跳投（One dribble pull-up jump shot）。他說他是「籃球學生」，把老派技巧和運動能力融合在一起，變出一套「外掛」。

Melo 的想法也很直白。他說自己會把每一個招式都練到極致。選一個動作，像是虛晃跳投或底線後仰，重複練，練到變反射動作，再幫每個招式設計反制對策，難怪他會被稱為「進攻萬花筒」。

Rudy Gay 講到現代籃球一個大問題：當防守者把你趕出三分線後，你接下來要怎麼打？這個時刻就是中距離存在的理由。不只是投籃，更是瞬間判斷：是投？是拋投？是分球？還是切進？防守的訓練都在逼掉三分，但沒人在管你中距離。

他們的訊息很明確：每支冠軍隊伍最終都需要中距離。沒有它，拿不到冠軍戒。

Melo 更舉出了 SGA（Shai Gilgeous-Alexander）作為最佳例子，他在上賽季的 MVP 級表現帶領 OKC 奪得總冠軍，就是靠著精準閱讀防守，常常用角度、假動作和中距離跳投懲罰對手。（黑粉可能會說：還有騙罰球！）

在 Melo 他們看來，SGA 證明了：即使是在當今講究效率的NBA，只要你能把中距離打到極致，一樣可以成為頂尖球星。

中距离不是投篮，而是决策能力

聽完那集，我又想到在上賽季東超聯賽期間自己訪問澳門黑熊大主管彭鵬（Lukas Peng）時他說的一段話，跟剛剛講的完全連得起來。

他說：「大家都以為攻擊撲防（Closeout）很簡單，其實一點也不。定點三分很好投，誰都可以。但一旦你遇到撲防，事情就變難了。會有協防，你得判斷要不要傳？要不要收掉？要不要急停跳投？這是超難的。我看到很多亞洲球員一旦被防守者撲防，就不知道該幹嘛。」

或許，這也是中距離的一個精髓：它不僅僅是投籃，它是一整套實戰判斷。要你讀防守、找角度、用假動作讓對手上當。因為練這個的人不多，數據才會一直顯示它低效。

數據的自我驗證循環

Melo 也在那集播客裡面談到一個重點：中距離是一個很艱難的出手，如果你不練，就不會有效率，而現在的球員都不練這個了。

這裡就出現了一個矛盾：中距離沒效率，是因為大家都不練；但大家不練，是因為數據說它沒效率。於是就出現了一個完美的死循環：

數據說中距離沒效率
球隊不再安排中距離訓練
球員技術跟不上
投不進，命中率持續偏低
數據再次證明：中距離沒效率

這樣轉來轉去。可這個循環並不代表中距離過時，而是說：你怎麼訓練球員，就會造出怎樣的數據結果。

給馬來西亞的啟示

所以，這對大馬籃球有什麼啟發？

Lukas 講得沒錯：亞洲很多球員只會定點投籃。空位OK，一逼近就卡住。這不是單純投籃的問題，而是整體判斷力不足的問題。

打籃球，更重要的是學會觀察防守、做假動作、找空隙、打破輪轉。這些能力，不只用在中距離，全場都能派上用場。再說，當對手把你的三分和內線都封死的時候，能打開局面的往往就是中距離。

我們真正該思考的是：我們是要培養只會照數據打球的球員？還是能即時讀懂場上局勢、做出選擇的球員？

效率能幫你贏一場比賽，但能幫你奪冠的，是對比賽的理解。

最後一擊

我相信數據，但或許我還是有點老派，我是看著 Michael Jordan 的後仰跳投長大的，所以我更相信中距離沒死，它只是太難，大多數人練不起來。

數據可以說明效率，但它看不出那個瞬間的判斷。它沒辦法測出 DeRozan 一個假動作有多細膩，Melo 的後仰多穩定，或是 SGA 的中距離跳投怎麼讓整個防線瞬間瓦解。

到最後，每支冠軍隊伍都需要那個被數據時代排擠的投籃。

問題是：有誰敢去掌握這最難的一招？

我很想聽聽你的想法，歡迎留言、分享。

— Jordan

☕ 如果你喜歡我寫的內容，也想支持我繼續深度報導與分享觀點，歡迎到 Buy Me A Coffee 給我一點鼓勵：

👉 coff.ee/jordanyap35

每一杯咖啡，都是我繼續寫下去的動力。謝謝你！

註：有興趣看 Melo 那集播客的朋友，我把鏈結放在最下方。

🇬🇧 ENGLISH VERSION

The Midrange Isn’t Dead — It’s Just Too Hard for Most Players

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.