Basketball Strategy Question
 

:confused: While reading the rules of a game called "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, and how could they loose?

I also found this article:The Greatest 3 Pt. Shooters. 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:

Re: Basketball Strategy Question
 

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!

Re: Basketball Strategy Question
 

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

Re: Basketball Strategy Question
 

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.

Re: Basketball Strategy Question
 

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.

Re: Basketball Strategy Question
 

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.

Re: Basketball Strategy Question
 

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::

Re: Basketball Strategy Question
 

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

Re: Basketball Strategy Question
 

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?

Re: Basketball Strategy Question
 

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...

Re: Basketball Strategy Question
 

Shaq would die a very poor man....

Re: Basketball Strategy Question
 

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.

Re: Basketball Strategy Question
 

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.

Re: Basketball Strategy Question
 

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.

Re: Basketball Strategy Question
 

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?