… Consequences

In my last post we explored the law of unintended consequences – that strange phenomenon that often occurs when we take an established routine or “way of doing things” – cutting the grass, driving to work, drafting a memo, playing a game, virtually anything – and change the routine or rules or circumstances under which the activity takes place.

Sometimes the change produces the outcome we desire; in other instances, the opposite occurs, often because the participants shift their behavior in unexpected ways in response to the initial change in routine. The well-intended result in one area often ripples into an unintended consequence in another.

I promised to explore how the law of unintended consequences has played out in the world of college basketball. Here goes. Continue reading…

Unintended…

Imagine waking up tomorrow to discover that you’ve been named head coach of a new franchise in a newly formed professional league called the North American Basketball Association. Like their counterparts in the NBA, your squad will play on a traditional sized basketball court outlined with the same markings and using a basket suspended ten feet from floor. For all practical purposes you’ll be coaching the same game under the same rules… but with one, critically important difference.

There’s no game clock.

The first team to reach 50 points determines half time. The first team to reach 100 is the victor. Game over. Continue reading…

Rise & Fire

If you’re shopping for a terrific last minute Christmas gift for your favorite basketball junkie (perhaps yourself?), look no further than Shawn Fury’s Rise and Fire, The Origins, Science, and Evolution of the Jump Shot – and How It Transformed Basketball Forever.

It’s a wonderful addition to any basketball fan’s bookcase.

As the book jacket reveals, Rise and Fire traces the history of how the jump shot revolutionized the game, “shedding light on all corners of the basketball world, from NBA arenas to the playgrounds of New York City and the barns of Indiana. Award-winning journalist, Shawn Fury, obsesses over the jump shot, explores its fundamentals, puzzles over it complexities, marvels at its simplicity, and honors some of basketball’s greatest moments.”

Fury’s exploration of the jump shot has special significance for readers of betterthanalayup.com.

When I launched the site in 2014 I outlined ten immutable laws or principles that define the nature of basketball and govern its play. These laws are fundamental to understanding, coaching, and playing basketball. Once mastered they form a prism through which one can “see” the game, appreciate its simplicity, and master its subtleties. At the center of the ten is the all-important Fifth Law: A jump shot is better than a layup. For me it’s the cornerstone on which modern basketball theory rests and why I named my site betterthanalayup.

Pick up a copy of Shawn Fury’s book. You’ll like it.

Revisiting the High Ball Screen

Several years ago I went on a rant about the high ball screen – an offensive scheme featuring one or more bigs near the top of the circle trying to free a dribbler for a long jumper or drive down the lane.

For a full-blown critique you can revisit my original post but basically I find it congests the court, takes too long too unfold, and seldom results in a basket.

A short time later I discovered a fantastic piece posted by another basketball blogger, Scott Ginn, over at betterbasketball.com. In a satirical piece entitled Dear High Ball Screen, Let’s Just Be Friends, Ginn questions the effectiveness of the maneuver and supports his claim with an interesting statistical analysis of the 2012 NCAA championship game between Kansas and Kentucky. Here’s what he discovered.

• Total number of High Ball Screens (HBS) attempted: 39

• Total number of direct baskets: 4

• Total number of indirect baskets: 2

• Total number of non-related baskets on a HBS possession: 2

In short, according to Ginn the HBS created six baskets the entire game. It was successful (directly and indirectly) only 15% of the time.

I was intrigued by Ginn’s analysis and decided to go a step further. I charted the 2014 and 2015 Final Fours, six games involving six schools – Kentucky, Wisconsin, Duke, Florida, Connecticut, and Michigan State – using Ginn’s statistical categories and adding a few of my own.

• High Ball Screen followed by another HBS: No FGA

• High Ball Screen followed by a turnover: No FGA

• High Ball Screen followed by a foul: No FGA

• Direct Baskets: a score by either the ball handler receiving the screen or the screener (rolling, popping, etc.) after setting the screen.

• Indirect Baskets: a score by any player as a result of the screen, but not directly related to it. This happens when the screen creates turmoil in the defense and a score results. Or, if the ball handler uses the screen, then pitches for a shot. Or, even if the screener gets the pass and finds an open shooter once help arrives.

•Non-Related Baskets: those scores on any possession where a HBS was used, but had nothing to do with the score. For example, a HBS is set, the defense stops it, the offense resets (calls a play, runs a motion, etc.), and scores. That basket had nothing to do with the HBS except that it occurred on the same possession.

And the results?

high-ball-screen-analysis

In six games at the highest level of competition the high ball screen produced direct and indirect field goals only 17% of the time – not significantly different than what Ginn discovered. That’s a lot of work to generate 35 field goals in 240 minutes of competition.

I’m reminded of an old basketball adage: Don’t drive into a loaded defense. The high ball screen does exactly that. With the screener comes a second defender and because the maneuver occurs so far from the basket the defense can load up with additional defenders from the help side. Unless you have a Steve Nash or Steph Curry on your squad, complimented by a big man who can move and shoot, you’re likely to generate lots of dribbling and not much scoring.