Basketball Strategy Question

[IKE]

:confused: While reading the rules of a game called "Basketball" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball), I noticed that there is a "chokehold" strategy. If you made a team full of 3 pt. shooters (3 or more of the 5), then in theory, they wouldn't even need to really play defense other than not let the other team score 3 point shots. They could hire this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng8ND5tuvJg&feature=related), and how could they loose?

I also found this article:The Greatest 3 Pt. Shooters (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/793178-nba-history-ray-allen-larry-bird-and-the-greatest-3-point-shooters-ever). Most of these guys, I have barely heard of Honestly, I know Larry Bird, Reggie Miller, and have heard of the one guy from the Suns.

Any thoughts on why this strategy doesn't dominate the NBA?:confused:

[Cem8301]

3 pointers are a lot harder to make when there is a defense. I think that if a particular player is know for his 3-pointers he will be more heavily guarded along the rim.

Back to robots... defense is something that we will have to worry about. If your team can only make shots from a particular spot on the field, other robots can make it more difficult for your robot to get there and impede your shot. Interesting concept though... I think we can learn a lot from real basketball!

[Grim Tuesday]

I feel like this thread is a hint as to what 33 is doing, and they think they've found a chokehold strategy.

[IKE]

I feel like this thread is a hint as to what 33 is doing, and they think they've found a chokehold strategy.

No, not a hint. Merely some thoughts that have been bugging me a bit. Watching basketball, it seems that the 2 point shot is valued significantly over the 3 pt. shot. Most of the big money guys are inside players playing the short game in basketball (dunks and lay-ups). Some of the greats listed in the "3 pt." article cited guys shooting aaround 40 to 50%. Since the value is 50% higher (3/2), then one would think that the 2 pt. shot would need to be on the order of 60 to 75% in order to be the smart play. Looking through some NBA stats, I find that a FG% around 60% is usually considered very good, and a 3FG% above 40% is also considered good. My guess is that the re-bound on a missed shot is likely gained by the shooter more often with the close shots. This additional gain would likely be the reason that primary scoring and money go to guys playing the close game.

[Basel A]

I would suspect that 3-pointers these days are usually taken only when they're open or minimally defended. That situation happens when you have the inside guys who leverage basketball's anti-defence rules going straight for the basket. If you can pull more than one player to your inside guy, then you'll have someone open on the outside. The inside player's other purpose is to rebound, which I think you pointed out, though the most valuable inside players can score as well. I agree with you to some degree: an open 3-pointer is always better than an open mid-range jumper and driving the basket is over-rated.

[Karthik]

No, not a hint. Merely some thoughts that have been bugging me a bit. Watching basketball, it seems that the 2 point shot is valued significantly over the 3 pt. shot. Most of the big money guys are inside players playing the short game in basketball (dunks and lay-ups). Some of the greats listed in the "3 pt." article cited guys shooting aaround 40 to 50%. Since the value is 50% higher (3/2), then one would think that the 2 pt. shot would need to be on the order of 60 to 75% in order to be the smart play. Looking through some NBA stats, I find that a FG% around 60% is usually considered very good, and a 3FG% above 40% is also considered good. My guess is that the re-bound on a missed shot is likely gained by the shooter more often with the close shots. This additional gain would likely be the reason that primary scoring and money go to guys playing the close game.

I could write a paper on this subject, but I'll do my best to explain simply.

The 3 point shot is undervalued in the NBA; more specifically, NBA players have a strange obsession with the long 2 pointer, with has lowest expected value of any play in basketball. That being said, finding players who can shoot the 3 at 40% or better in game situations with defense is difficult. There were 31 players who shot at that rate last season, but remember this is not with them mad bombing 3's at all costs. This their percentage based on only shooting what the player perceives to be a "good shot". If a team were to employ the strategy you suggest, their 3 point percentages would drop dramatically.

There are a lot more factors that go into this, but basically, teams should probably shoot more three pointers, however, simply relying on the three point shot sends you into risky territory.

[Alpha Beta]

The best 3 point play in the NBA is driving to the rim and getting fouled while making the shot. Of course if a player is fouled while making a 3, it could be a 4 point play.

As far as robots go I'm hoping to sucker some defensive bots into giving me a 6 point play. Now, what's the best protected place on the field to shoot from if I want some "accidental" contact... ::rtm::

[mwtidd]

I think there are two key differences between basketball and this years game.

With regards to the 3 pt shot, in basketball, it is significantly more difficult to shoot than a 2pt shot. Where as in this years game there is little difference. Actually in this game if you decided on an angle you wanted the ball to fall into the hoop at, the 2 point shot would have to be taken from a greater distance.

The second difference is rebounding. For this I will refer to it as the long shot rather than the 3 pt shot, because I think it is applicable. In basketball you take the long shot, assuming that you will be able to rebound it at about 50%. So the value of 3 pt shots is not just 3 * attempts * %, but rather 3 * attempts * % + 2 * attempts * .5 * 2 pt FG%

I am curious as to what people think the various stats would be for shooting from the top of the key vs the bottom of the key. And also how many rebounds can be made. I imagine a team that can shoot from the top of the key and cross the barrier, paired with 2 teams that rebound well would be a stronger alliance than 3 robots that shoot 66% from the bottom of the key

[wilhitern1]

How do you do you expect to account for the following fact:
Of the three balls we got, none are the same weight, density center, or compactability?

[Bob Steele]

I would be curious to see how human basketball would be played if you could take shots from the foul line without any defense... I have a huge feeling that the game would be played from the foul line. In human basketball, defense is totally different... and there is only one ball...

Before robotics, I played and coached basketball for quite a long time... long enough to see a player from the high school I taught and coached at to play in the NBA finals. Defense is what dictates human basketball... a team uses 3 point shots to open up the middle so they can score inside... if defense were played on 3 point shooters one of two things would happen... first that player would drive to the basket... and either shoot or dish off.. or two... that player would find a player closer to the basket under less defensive pressure to pass to and take the shot.

In human basketball... a defense does not want to play defense on the 3 point shooter... bad things happen... you commit a foul and the player gets 3 foul shots.. it also means one on one defense... the closer you are to the basket the tighter the offensive players are together... one defender can play multiple offensive players... easier to double up...

Frankly if basketball where played like our game... it would be a simple issue of getting the ball to someone at the foul line... and then turning around and shooting it without ANY defensive pressure...
In the NBA... with a few notable exceptions...(primarily inside players...) ALL players have better shot percentages from foul shots than court shots...

In our game... there is not even any advantage from shooting outside..
(No 3-point rule)

Someone asked why a player would take a long-non 3-pointer in an NBA game... they would because they were under less defensive pressure... simple as that..
defense dictates where the shot is taken...

[Koko Ed]

I would be curious to see how human basketball would be played if you could take shots from the foul line without any defense...



Shaq would die a very poor man....

[Lil' Lavery]

I could write a paper on this subject, but I'll do my best to explain simply.

The 3 point shot is undervalued in the NBA; more specifically, NBA players have a strange obsession with the long 2 pointer, with has lowest expected value of any play in basketball. That being said, finding players who can shoot the 3 at 40% or better in game situations with defense is difficult. There were 31 players who shot at that rate last season, but remember this is not with them mad bombing 3's at all costs. This their percentage based on only shooting what the player perceives to be a "good shot". If a team were to employ the strategy you suggest, their 3 point percentages would drop dramatically.

There are a lot more factors that go into this, but basically, teams should probably shoot more three pointers, however, simply relying on the three point shot sends you into risky territory.

I won't pretend that I watch basketball as much as I presume you do, but my interpretation of the "mid-range jumper" is that it's often the open play. It's usually what the defense is most willing to give up, when push comes to shove. They won't give the higher probability shot or lay-up close range, and they won't give the higher scoring 3-pointer. So the ball handler takes what's given to them.

[Chris Hibner]

:confused: While reading the rules of a game called "Basketball" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball), I noticed that there is a "chokehold" strategy. If you made a team full of 3 pt. shooters (3 or more of the 5), then in theory, they wouldn't even need to really play defense other than not let the other team score 3 point shots. They could hire this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng8ND5tuvJg&feature=related), and how could they loose?

I also found this article:The Greatest 3 Pt. Shooters (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/793178-nba-history-ray-allen-larry-bird-and-the-greatest-3-point-shooters-ever). Most of these guys, I have barely heard of Honestly, I know Larry Bird, Reggie Miller, and have heard of the one guy from the Suns.

Any thoughts on why this strategy doesn't dominate the NBA?:confused:

In the NBA, you are correct. Rick Pitino had a lot of Kentucky teams ranked #1 consistently using the 3 pointer as a primary shot. John Beilein has been trying to do it at Michigan.

I've thought about that a lot. If you are a believer in expected value, the three point shot is a much better option in basketball. I think the problem is: 1) "momentum" affects the human psyche enough that a few empty trips down the court (and the resulting point deficit) makes the human players a bit jumpy and 2) humans shooting baskets are prone to hot and cold streaks (i.e. lack of repeatability) makes the strategy dominant in some games and awful in others.

[Karthik]

I won't pretend that I watch basketball as much as I presume you do, but my interpretation of the "mid-range jumper" is that it's often the open play. It's usually what the defense is most willing to give up, when push comes to shove. They won't give the higher probability shot or lay-up close range, and they won't give the higher scoring 3-pointer. So the ball handler takes what's given to them.

Correct, since the mid-range shot has the lowest expected value, it's also the shot the defense is most willing to leave open. As a result some offensive players settle for this shot, instead of fighting for a better (read: higher expected value) shot. It's been driving coaches, teammates and fans crazy since the creation of the three point line.

[pfreivald]

Interesting read. I love games, but not so much basketball. (I'm aware there are baskets and balls involved, but that's about it.) Thanks for the topic!

And Karthik, are you MCing FLR again this year?

[Karthik]

And Karthik, are you MCing FLR again this year?

Unfortunately, FLR ended up being scheduled on the same weekend as the Greater Toronto Regional East. As such, I will not be able to make the trip down to Rochester. It's too bad, I'll miss seeing the teams and people I've gotten to know while MCing there in 2009 and 2011

[pfreivald]

Unfortunately, FLR ended up being scheduled on the same weekend as the Greater Toronto Regional East. As such, I will not be able to make the trip down to Rochester. It's too bad, I'll miss seeing the teams and people I've gotten to know while MCing there in 2009 and 2011

:( We lose 2053, 217, and Karthik all in one year?

Alas, we'll have to have fun anyway...

[Laaba 80]

In the NBA, you are correct. Rick Pitino had a lot of Kentucky teams ranked #1 consistently using the 3 pointer as a primary shot. John Beilein has been trying to do it at Michigan.

Its much harder to make a living with 3s in the NBA, as the 3 point line is moved back about 3 ft from the college line.

The Wisconsin Badgers are a team that relies heavily on the 3 pointer, and defense. They lead the nation in defense, only allowing 48.5 ppg. They are really hit or miss on offense though. If they make the 3s, they will win, but then they have games where they shoot 10% from 3. This strategy has been very successful for them, they are consistently a ranked team (except now), and they had a #1 ranking during the season a few years back.

[dtengineering]

The NBA has some interesting stats (http://www.nba.com/statistics/default_all_time_leaders/AllTimeLeadersFGPQuery.html?topic=4&stat=4) on this matter.

For instance the highest all-time career three point shooting percentage is Steve Kerr, who made 726/1599 shots for 45.5%.

Steve Nash, a local favorite, is averaging 1577/3678 for 42.9%.

Take either one of those guys, and you'd have to shoot 65% from inside the line to keep up with them.

But a big guy like Shaq, who has the second highest all-time field goal percentage (if not foul shot percentage...) only hits 58.2% of the time. However... that is based on 11,330/19,457 shots.

So yeah, given an average shot attempt, it is better to have Nash shoot for three than Shaq shoot for two. It's just that Shaq gets about four or five times as many "average shot attempts" as Nash.

Anyway, this is the sort thing I have time to look up now that I don't have a team... sigh.

Jason

P.S. Someone mentioned that a missed 3 created a rebounding opportunity. So does a missed 2.

[Laaba 80]

The NBA has some interesting stats (http://www.nba.com/statistics/default_all_time_leaders/AllTimeLeadersFGPQuery.html?topic=4&stat=4) on this matter.

For instance the highest all-time career three point shooting percentage is Steve Kerr, who made 726/1599 shots for 45.5%.

Steve Nash, a local favorite, is averaging 1577/3678 for 42.9%.

Take either one of those guys, and you'd have to shoot 65% from inside the line to keep up with them.

But a big guy like Shaq, who has the second highest all-time field goal percentage (if not foul shot percentage...) only hits 58.2% of the time. However... that is based on 11,330/19,457 shots.

So yeah, given an average shot attempt, it is better to have Nash shoot for three than Shaq shoot for two. It's just that Shaq gets about four or five times as many "average shot attempts" as Nash.

Anyway, this is the sort thing I have time to look up now that I don't have a team... sigh.

Jason

P.S. Someone mentioned that a missed 3 created a rebounding opportunity. So does a missed 2.

Also keep in mind that the big guys have a greater chance of getting fouled, and going to the FT line. Despite Shaq's awful FT shooting, he still has over twice as many career FTs made than Nash

[Chris Hibner]

For the high school students who haven't had probability and statistics yet: sorry. There has been a number of mentions of "expected value" without any explaination. I'm sure wikipedia would clear that up with a search, but here's the quick explanation of it:

Expected value is used in probability. It means basically "how many points can you expect PER SHOT".

Mathematically, it is the probability multiplied by the value.

For example: in basketball, it's typical for a team to make 50% of their two point shots (probability of 0.5), and 40% of their three-pointers (probability of 0.4). Then the two types of shots have the following expected values:

Two pointer = 0.5 * 2 points => 1 point

Three pointer = 0.4 * 3 points => 1.2 points

This shows that the expected value of the three point shot is higher, which means teams should be taking more threes and less twos. This says that you're expected to score 20% more points for each trip down the court by using the three. In a game that averages 100 points, taking nothing but threes should theoretically score you 20 more points than if you took only two pointers.

Anyway, back to the discussion.

[Coach Norm]

Lots of good discussion here on basketball strategy. Having coached and played basketball for my entire career (21 years teaching) before going into robotics, I must say I am thoroughly enjoying the points being discussed.

BTW, I never had a professional coach spend any time in my practices, but I know have 12 professionals who volunteer with my students on a daily basis.

I think it is very hard to compare this game to the real game of basketball. The number of balls alone makes it more difficult to compare but also because the height of the goal is what determines the difficulty of the shot. Basketball itself is determined by the distance from the goal for the shot's success.

I believe one reason to having more mid range shots than three pointers is that coaches want to put the opposing team in the shooting penalty. You get more fouls called closer to the basket than out around the three point line.

As a coach, I used the inside/close range only as well as more long range shots but it always depended on my personnel I had on my team since I was a high school basketball coach. Play with what skills you have on your team, I see this same strategy employed at the higher levels of FRC in contest. Not all teams are composed of the same type player (robot).

Shooting more three pointers can definitely impact the flow of the game and strategy. In Texas, getting to the playoffs depended on a series of regular season games. I remember a well respected coach commenting to me about a team who depended on threes as there strategy: "You must do it for seven games in a row to win a championship." As several of you have eluded to, human factors begin to play a major part in missed shots, streaks, etc.

I know that Rick Pitino had the philosophy that the worst shot in basketball was a long two pointer where the player was standing on the three point line. He would even sub for these players. Why waste a shot that six inches would have made a difference in the point total.

Wow, what a fun game and conversation.

[Peter Matteson]

Ike, I suggest some light reading, 700 pages or so......
This book explains a lot of what you're interested in with the history of the NBA section where the ABA/ABA merger and subsequent rule changes are adressed. Unfortunately Bill Simmons is rather long winded in his writting so it's hard to summarize this much more than Karthik did above.

http://www.amazon.com/Book-Basketball-NBA-According-Sports/dp/0345520106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326833166&sr=8-1

[IKE]

707 pages at $7.50 for a brand new hard cover... If I value the cover art at $0.43, then this material is worth $0.01 per page...:yikes:

I read Moneyball over Christmas break after seeing/enjoying the movie. It remined me how I loved baseball in my youth. I may have to give this a read after the championship.

[Karthik]

Ike,

Some more reading for you. Within the basketball sabremetrics community, there has been a lot of talk and research on the topic of efficiency. Shot location plays into this largely. Take a look at the following chart:

http://hoopdata.com/teamshotlocs.aspx

Notice that instead of three point percentage, they use a metric called "Effective Field Goal Percentage" or eFG%. This metric takes into account that three pointers are worth more than 2 points, and the shots are weighted accordingly. From this table you see that the most valuable shot in the NBA is still the dunk/layup with an expected value of 1.26 points this season. The three pointer is next with an EV of 1.01, with everything between being around 0.75.

This just scratches the surface of the analysis, but I figured it would give you a good taste of what's being studied, and some insights into effective NBA shot selection. I'm sure you'll find a lot more interesting questions and answers as you dig deeper.