Basketball Strategy Question

[IKE]

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?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by IKE

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.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Karthik

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.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

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]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

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]

Originally Posted by Karthik

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...

[dtengineering]

The NBA has some interesting stats 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.

[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.

[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...

[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?