Game related predictors discriminating between winning and losing teams in preliminary, second and final round of basketball world cup 2019

Evaluating the Efficiency of Off-Ball Screens in Elite Basketball Teams via Second-Order Markov Modelling

“…Our findings also revealed that the players, during off-ball screens, decide to execute their offense more by using 3-pt shots, followed by making use of a middle-range 2-pt shot; conversely, the lay-up option was not frequent. This is in line with [10], in which research at the World Cup 2019 pointed out that winning teams were more successful on their 3-pt shot attempts, on equally competitive teams. Regarding the effectiveness in the variations of executing the off-ball screens and finishing the offense, greater success is observed in using back screens and lay-ups, followed by flare screens and 2-pt shot; whereas the combination of high-cross screens and 3-pt shots was advantageous.…”

“…These approaches lack the detail of the evolution of the match, as they mainly focus on overall performance. Other studies have used discriminant analysis to obtain the most dominant factors that could potentially lead a team to victory in both the Basketball World Cup and domestic leagues [10][11][12]. Play-by-play data have more recently been included in basketball research and expanded the traditional use of summary statistics of tournaments.…”

Pre-shot combinations and game-related statistics discriminating between winners and losers depending on the game location during the NBA COVID-19 season

“…But it was not only the number of uncontested shots but also the percentage of success what made the difference between winners and losers. It happened the same with contested shots, what supports the idea of the crucial importance of shooting percentage both at the end of a good collective offense (with an open shot) and at the end of a possession in which the defense has been good enough to contest the shot ( Puente et al, 2015 ; Stavropoulos et al, 2021 ). The teams should have good shooters and good one-on-one players to consistently have good shooting percentage both in contested and uncontested situations.…”

“…However, it was not the two-point field-goal percentage but the three-point field-goal percentage the one which differentiated both teams, what reveals the growing importance of three-pointers in modern basketball ( Stavropoulos et al, 2021 ). Regarding to shooting, it is also important to notice the higher number of free-throw attempts in winners (but not a better free-throw percentage or free-throw hits) which is consistent with the traditional idea of the importance to consistently draw fouls that lead to free-throw opportunities ( Oliver, 2004 ; Mandić et al, 2019 ; Stavropoulos et al, 2021 ). However, the percentage seems to be only significant in away-court teams, probably due to balance a more functional aggressive behavior in home-court teams.…”

“…If we consider the pre-shot combinations, the second hypothesis was partially fulfilled, since the winners had better percentage and number of catch-and-shot field goals, but only there were better numbers of transitions for home-court and away-court team winners. The importance of shooting percentage has been previously discussed, and this insight provides a deeper analysis in the type of shot that could be better used to enhance the odds for winning ( Puente et al, 2015 ; Çene, 2018 ; Stavropoulos et al, 2021 ). It is also important to consider the better results in isolations made by the winners, together with a better percentage in drives.…”