3-pointer research, fwiw

[AZZenny]

Somebody has way too much time on his hands.

New research by Dr. Yonatan Loewenstein, of the Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain Sciences and the Department of Neurobiology at the Hebrew University, and graduate student Tal Neiman raise doubts about the ability of athletes in particular, and people in general, to predict future success based on past performance.

Loewenstein and Neiman examined more than 200,000 attempted shots from 291 leading players in the National Basketball Association (NBA) in the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 regular seasons, and more than 15,000 attempted shots by 41 leading players in the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) during the 2008 and 2009 regular seasons.

The researchers studied how scores or misses affected a player's behavior later in the game, and found that after a successful three-pointer, players were significantly more likely to attempt another three-pointer.

They discovered the exact opposite of what players and fans tend to believe: players who scored a three-pointer and then attempted another three-pointer were more likely to miss the follow-up shot. On the other hand, players who missed a previous three-pointer were more likely to score with their next attempt.

"The study shows that despite many years of intense training, even the best basketball players over-generalize from their most recent actions and their outcomes. They assume that even one shot is indicative of future performance, while not taking into account that the situation in which they previously scored is likely to be different than the current one," said Dr. Loewenstein.

The study appeared in the latest issue of the journal, Nature Communications.

http://www.israel21c.org/briefs/hu-researchers-dunk-basketball-myth

 

[AzStevenCal]

Somebody has way too much time on his hands.




Israeli research solves the mystery of NBA 3-pointers

I'm wondering if this is the same study we discussed here several months ago or if more than one group has come up with the same kind of results. I'm sure someone with better search skills than me will reference the other thread.

For myself, I don't really put a lot of stock in it. It seems to me that making a 3 point shot tends to convince the shooter that he should take another. Unfortunately, both good shooters and bad shooters make baskets and if they both try to ride their perceived "hot streak" it seems to me they'd pretty much negate each other.

Steve

 

[AZZenny]

Hopefully I just fixed the link. It's newly published, so probably different research. Israelis are basketball nuts, so wouldn't surprise me if there are competing researchers.

 

[Griffin]

I'm wondering if this is the same study we discussed here several months ago or if more than one group has come up with the same kind of results. I'm sure someone with better search skills than me will reference the other thread.

I don't know if you are referring to my thread on the Scorecasting book:
http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/f7/scorecasting-167891.html

I'm guessing there has been quite a bit of research into these areas over the years.

 

[BC867]

I understand the likelihood of hitting-after-they-miss or missing-after-they-hit. The odds usually even out.

But I wonder if the philosophies of keep-shooting-til-you-miss and being-in-the-zone supersede the odds.

If continuing to make 3-pointers puts points on the board, why not keep trying until you miss? If you miss, OK. If not, that's points on the board.

If you make them because your form is correct, that's a good thing. If you then miss because it is not, or the defense has reacted, it would not be good to keep flinging up threes, regardless of the odds.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I don't know if you are referring to my thread on the Scorecasting book:
http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/f7/scorecasting-167891.html

I'm guessing there has been quite a bit of research into these areas over the years.

I think that's the thread I was remembering. It drew similar conclusions although I guess the streak shooting comments weren't limited to the 3 point shot.

Steve

 

[Mainstreet]

What about 3 point specialists. Some players hit a relatively high percentage from 3 point range. Also I would prefer a player hitting the 3 point shot all game long to take a clutch 3 point shot when needed.

 

[elindholm]

No amount of scientific analysis is going to convince the average fan to give up his notion of players "getting hot." You might as well ask the right wing to accept evolution.

 

[AzStevenCal]

No amount of scientific analysis is going to convince the average fan to give up his notion of players "getting hot." You might as well ask the right wing to accept evolution.

Well, if you're just looking at this article, I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn. They don't really define what they mean nor do they detail how their study worked. What do they mean when they say a player is more likely to make or miss their next attempt? Is it compared individually or as a group? Are they saying a 35% shooter will shoot a lower percentage than that each time that person follows a made 3 pointer with another attempt. Is time elapsed a part of the equation? Have they removed from consideration the desperation shots? I would imagine the study is much more involved than this short article reported but without that information it's difficult to determine the relevance.

Steve

 

[Mainstreet]

No amount of scientific analysis is going to convince the average fan to give up his notion of players "getting hot." You might as well ask the right wing to accept evolution.

Did you ever see Eddie Johnson play? He is the definition of a player being hot or a player being cold. When Eddie was hot, he was lights out. However, when he went cold, sit him down for awhile.

 

[BC867]

Did you ever see Eddie Johnson play? He is the definition of a player being hot or a player being cold. When Eddie was hot, he was lights out. However, when he went cold, sit him down for awhile.

The concept of hot and cold seems to be more prevalent in baseball than basketball. On the D'backs, Steve Finley would go on a tear for a week or two and carry the team offensively. Then his bat would be absolutely mediocre for a month. Over and over.

I always wondered, "Other than injury or fatigue, why can't he do most nights what he can do some nights?" When he got hot, he got hot, home or away, no matter what pitcher he was facing.

In basketball, such as with EJ, I don't recall hot or cold ever lasting for weeks. Quarters maybe.

 

[Mainstreet]

In basketball, such as with EJ, I don't recall hot or cold ever lasting for weeks. Quarters maybe.

When I was speaking of Eddie Johnson I was talking in terms of minutes or quarters. If he is hot, ride him for all he is worth. Eddie could get a team 20+ in a flash. However, if he shoots a few and is off, sit him down for awhile. Eddie was a streak shooter. I think the Suns did a good job of recognizing this. Stats do not do a good job of recognizing these traits.

 

[BC867]

When I was speaking of Eddie Johnson I was talking in terms of minutes or quarters. If he is hot, ride him for all he is worth. Eddie could get a team 20+ in a flash. However, if he shoots a few and is off, sit him down for awhile. Eddie was a streak shooter. I think the Suns did a good job of recognizing this. Stats do not do a good job of recognizing these traits.

You and I agree. Hot and cold in basketball do not seem to go beyond a quarter, as opposed to baseball where it could last for weeks.

Perhaps because in basketball, if your 23-foot shot isn't falling, move in to 15 feet, then work your way back. The coaches will see to that.

Whereas in baseball, Chris Young tries to put every ball into the air as the Manager and Coaches watch it all season long . . . because baseball is obsessed with the fly ball home run. Even if it made him a .236 hitter, the 12th worst batting average of all D'backs with over 100 at-bats last season.