• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

basketball study

Wrangor said:
Zzzzzzzz. Sorry fell asleep waiting, bigdoublezero. For the amount of sarcasm you pile on the opposing view it would seem you could defend your point of view. Apparently not.
Click to expand...

He's trying to find a brief for you to read.
 
Wrangor said:
First of al the study says that there is an increase in percentage and secondly it said that often the difficulty of the shot increases if the player hits several consecutive shots.

Therefore I would say if you can get your "hot" player am open look then your odds are better.
Click to expand...

Fwiw, I believe this and other studies have shown pretty conclusively that the first case doesn't happen in actual games -- players don't shoot better after making consecutive shots. However, the reason for that is because players begin taking much more difficult shots, whether they have the hot hand or not. Basically, the performance of the truly hot players (assuming such a thing exists) is weighed down by the players who aren't hot, but think they are.
 
"Basically, the performance of the truly hot players (assuming such a thing exists) is weighed down by the players who aren't hot, but think they are."

So what you are saying is the "study" intensely flawed. If the study can't determine who is "hot", then none of it's alleged results can be taken to be of value.

Hitting one or two shots in a row is not being "hot". Thus being included in any study relegates the study to uselessness.
 
Everyone should be able to find the hot hand, if the announcer says "HEEEEE'S HEATING UP...." and then the player makes his next shot, BOOM he's on fire. #science
 
Wrangor said:
Zzzzzzzz. Sorry fell asleep waiting, bigdoublezero. For the amount of sarcasm you pile on the opposing view it would seem you could defend your point of view. Apparently not.
Click to expand...

Maybe he hasn't answered because you asked a ridiculous question that can't really be answered.

"Go ahead and sum up all basketball shooting analysis at the present and in the future and GO. And if you don't answer I'll mock you."
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Maybe he hasn't answered because you asked a ridiculous question that can't really be answered.

"Go ahead and sum up all basketball shooting analysis at the present and in the future and GO. And if you don't answer I'll mock you."
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Wrangor (and agree with bdz overall), but I'd be interested to see what some of the haters have to offer. "You're stupid" is a lousy way to get people who don't agree with you to agree with you.

My take on some of these analytics debates is that it's awesome information to have as it becomes more commonplace and more venues start tracking them (see Synergy), but it's not remotely useful in most practical contexts.
 
Strickland33 said:
I don't agree with Wrangor (and agree with bdz overall), but I'd be interested to see what some of the haters have to offer. "You're stupid" is a lousy way to get people who don't agree with you to agree with you.

My take on some of these analytics debates is that it's awesome information to have as it becomes more commonplace and more venues start tracking them (see Synergy), but it's not remotely useful in most practical contexts.
Click to expand...

See my response to his original question. There are some fascinating things being done with video analysis and wearable technology.

I wasn't calling him stupid, just said that his question was ridiculous, and coming back and posting twice with "well I'm waiting for an answer" is also pretty ridiculous.
 
Does the "hot hand" exist in basketball? New study says yes.

BeachBumDeac said:
Maybe he hasn't answered because you asked a ridiculous question that can't really be answered.

"Go ahead and sum up all basketball shooting analysis at the present and in the future and GO. And if you don't answer I'll mock you."
Click to expand...

Oh so the jump shot isn't quantifiable? That is my point. It is not statistically quantifiable. That is why mocking people who believe in the use test is dumb. Don't mock people for saying something isn't quantifiable and then be unable to produce your formula.
 
Last edited:
Wrangor said:
Oh so the jump shot isn't quantifiable? That is my point. It is not statistically quantifiable. That is why mocking people who believe in the use test is dumb. Don't mock people for saying something isn't quantifiable and then be unable to produce your formula.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Like half the things you listed in that original post are actually quantifiable, and can be correlated with the success rate of the shot and then regressed to find what combination of those factors works best for each player.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
What are you talking about? Like half the things you listed in that original post are actually quantifiable, and can be correlated with the success rate of the shot and then regressed to find what combination of those factors works best for each player.
Click to expand...

Then do it and predict when a single player will make or miss a single shot.
 
Wrangor said:
Then do it and predict when a single player will make or miss a single shot.
Click to expand...

Great discussion dude.

Don't you think it would be useful information to know what factors of knee flexion, elbow flexion, hip flexion, fatigue, position on floor, position of defender would make a career 30% shooter shoot at 60%? You don't think that is possible with large amount of video analysis?
 
I most def had the hot hand on Flappy Bird this morning.
 
Does the "hot hand" exist in basketball? New study says yes.

BeachBumDeac said:
Great discussion dude.

Don't you think it would be useful information to know what factors of knee flexion, elbow flexion, hip flexion, fatigue, position on floor, position of defender would make a career 30% shooter shoot at 60%? You don't think that is possible with large amount of video analysis?
Click to expand...

I have already said I believe stats and science are extremely helpful. My point on his thread is to dispute anyone that denies the reality of the hot hand.

This is my last post on this thread and I think this should sum it up for me.

Shooting the Basketball is both science and art combined. You can teach someone the science of painting a landscape but there is a great deal of factors that determine whether that piece of art is a masterpiece or worthy of the trash.

In the same way shooting a basketball is art and science. A great deal can be analyzed scientifically but there is also a great deal of art involved. The sheer amount of variables involved make it impossible to ever develop a completely predictive formula for shooting. Science can certainly improve but in game to game situations the art of coaching is very important in determining which players deserve shots and how to best use a player on any given night.

Shooting a basketball is based on repetitive movement. Common sense would tell you that repeating a make motion is easier than finding a make motion after missing. Personally experience in playing and coaching tells me that a player can get in a groove and become a much better or much worse short term shooter depending on whether they are grooving makes or misses. While their overall shooting stats will trend towards their shooting norm, in the short term it is in a coach's best interest to get grooves players repeated looks from similar distances and angles. It was always one of our focuses as a staff. If a player made a basket we would try to get them a similar look within the flow of the offense as soon as possible to see if we could start to groove that shot.

Hopefully hat makes my case. Stats and analytical are incredibly helpful in basketball. So is experience and intuition. Anything else I say is just repetitive. Peace. Bzzout.
 
Shooting a basketball seems to me to be 100% physics. Painting is not a good comparison. You could build a robot to shoot a basketball and never miss, but you could not build a robot to create new art (yet). You could probably build a robot to mimic brush strokes as end up with the Mona Lisa though. I don't know if that makes sense.
 
Strickland33 said:
I don't agree with Wrangor (and agree with bdz overall), but I'd be interested to see what some of the haters have to offer. "You're stupid" is a lousy way to get people who don't agree with you to agree with you.

My take on some of these analytics debates is that it's awesome information to have as it becomes more commonplace and more venues start tracking them (see Synergy), but it's not remotely useful in most practical contexts.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is there are some things in life that can't be explained by statistics.

I bet anyone who is watching the Lakers/Thunder game believe Jodie Meeks is in the zone.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Shooting a basketball seems to me to be 100% physics. Painting is not a good comparison. You could build a robot to shoot a basketball and never miss, but you could not build a robot to create new art (yet). You could probably build a robot to mimic brush strokes as end up with the Mona Lisa though. I don't know if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

You couldn't build a robot to anticipate the actions of nine other live humans and get itself open.
 
What percentage of shooting the basketball is magic? That's really the only thing left undefined by Wrangorscience at this point.
 
RJKarl said:
You couldn't build a robot to anticipate the actions of nine other live humans and get itself open.
Click to expand...

Well that's a good point, because that's exactly what I said. You probably could though assuming its mechanics were fluid enough to move like a basketball player. It's not all that different from a robot playing chess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top