In this paper, we analyze the shooting performance of basketball players by examining the factors that may generate high-pressure game situations. Using play-by-play data from the Italian “Serie A2” Championship 2015/2016 to build the model, we validate the main results using data from the Olympic Basketball Tournament “Rio 2016” to determine whether the relationships we identified can be confirmed using data from players at a very different professional level. After a preliminary exploratory analysis, we (1) develop a multivariate model based on the Classification and Regression Tree algorithm in order to investigate how selected high-pressure situations, jointly considered, affect scoring probability and then propose new shooting performance measures; (2) investigate players’ personal reactions to selected high-pressure game situations by introducing additional new measures, improving the indices currently used to measure shooting performance. The results are interesting and easy to interpret with the aid of some insightful graphical representations. Our approach can be exploited by both scouts and coaches to understand important player characteristics and, ultimately, to measure and enhance a team’s performance.
Albert J, Bennett J and Cochran JJ. Anthology of statistics in sports (vol. 16). Philadelphia, PA, USA: SIAM, 2005.
2.
Albert J and Koning RH. Statistical thinking in sports. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2007.
3.
Zuccolotto P, Manisera M and Kenett RS (eds) Statistics in Sports. Electronic Journal of Statistical Analysis [Special issue] 2017; 10(3): 629–880.
4.
KubatkoJOliverDPeltonKet al.A starting point for analyzing basketball statistics. J Quant Anal Sports2007; 3: 1–22.
5.
WestBTet al.A simple and flexible rating method for predicting success in the NCAA basketball tournament: updated results from 2007. J Quant Anal Sports2008; 4: 1–18.
6.
LoeffelholzBBednarEBauerKWet al.Predicting NBA games using neural networks. J Quant Anal Sports2009; 5: 1–15.
GuptaAA. A new approach to bracket prediction in the NCAA men’s basketball tournament based on a dual-proportion likelihood. J Quant Anal Sports2015; 11: 53–67.
9.
LopezMJMatthewsGJ. Building an NCAA men’s basketball predictive model and quantifying its success. J Quant Anal Sports2015; 11: 5–12.
10.
RuizFJPerez-CruzF. A generative model for predicting outcomes in college basketball. J Quant Anal Sports2015; 11: 39–52.
MannerH. Modeling and forecasting the outcomes of NBA basketball games. J Quant Anal Sports2016; 12: 31–41.
13.
PageGLFellinghamGWReeseCS. Using box-scores to determine a position’s contribution to winning basketball games. J Quant Anal Sports2007; 3: 1–16.
14.
CooperWWRuizJLSirventI. Selecting non-zero weights to evaluate effectiveness of basketball players with DEA. Eur J Oper Res2009; 195: 563–574.
15.
PietteJAnandSZhangK. Scoring and shooting abilities of NBA players. J Quant Anal Sports2010; 6: 1–23.
16.
FearnheadPTaylorBM. On estimating the ability of NBA players. J Quant Anal Sports2011; 7: 1–18.
17.
OzmenMU. Foreign player quota, experience and efficiency of basketball players. J Quant Anal Sports2012; 8: 1–18.
18.
PageGLBarneyBJMcGuireAT. Effect of position, usage rate, and per game minutes played on NBA player production curves. J Quant Anal Sports2013; 9: 337–345.
19.
DeshpandeSKJensenST. Estimating an NBA player’s impact on his team’s chances of winning. J Quant Anal Sports2016; 12: 51–72.
20.
SkinnerB. The price of anarchy in basketball. J Quant Anal Sports2010; 6: 1–18.
21.
ShortridgeAGoldsberryKAdamsM. Creating space to shoot: quantifying spatial relative field goal efficiency in basketball. J Quant Anal Sports2014; 10: 303–313.
Hand DJ, Mannila H and Smyth P. Principles of data mining (adaptive computation and machine learning). Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2001.
24.
Han J, Pei J and Kamber M. Data mining: concepts and techniques. Waltham, MA, USA: Elsevier, 2011.
25.
Tango TM, Lichtman MG and Dolphin AE. The book: playing the percentages in baseball. Washington DC, USA: Potomac Books, Inc., 2007.
26.
JonesG. What is this thing called mental toughness? An investigation of elite sport performers. J Appl Sport Psychol2002; 14: 205–218.
27.
ApesteguiaJPalacios-HuertaI. Psychological pressure in competitive environments: evidence from a randomized natural experiment. Am Econ Rev2010; 100: 2548–2564.
28.
Goldman M and Rao JM. Effort vs. concentration: the asymmetric impact of pressure on NBA performance. In: MIT Sloan sports analytics conference, Boston, MA, USA, 4–5 March 2012.
29.
TaylorJ. Predicting athletic performance with self-confidence and somatic and cognitive anxiety as a function of motor and physiological requirements in six sports. J Pers1987; 55: 139–153.
30.
MaddenCCKirkbyRJMcDonaldDet al.Stressful situations in competitive basketball. Austr Psychol1995; 30: 119–124.
31.
MaddenCSummersJBrownDet al.The influence of perceived stress on coping with competitive basketball. Int J Sport Psychol1990; 21: 21–35.
32.
TrninićSDizdarDLukšićE. Differences between winning and defeated top quality basketball teams in final tournaments of European club championship. Coll Antropol2002; 26: 521–531.
33.
Carpita M, Sandri M, Simonetto A, et al. Football mining with R [Chapter 14]. In: Zhao Y and Cen Y (eds) Data mining applications with R. Cambridge, MA, USA: Elsevier, 2014. pp.397–433.
34.
CarpitaMSandriMSimonettoAet al.Discovering the drivers of football match outcomes with data mining. Qual Technol Quant Manage2015; 12: 561–577.
35.
Breiman L, Friedman J, Stone CJ, et al. Classification and regression trees. Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth, CRC Press, 1984.
36.
WuXKumarVQuinlanJRet al.Top 10 algorithms in data mining. Knowl Inform Syst2008; 14: 1–37.
BreimanL. Random forests. Mach Learn2001; 45: 5–32.
39.
FriedmanJH. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Ann Stat2001; 29: 1189–1232.
40.
SandriMZuccolottoP. A bias correction algorithm for the Gini variable importance measure in classification trees. J Comput Graph Stat2008; 17: 611–628.
41.
SandriMZuccolottoP. Analysis and correction of bias in total decrease in node impurity measures for tree-based algorithms. Stat Comput2010; 20: 393–407.
42.
RobinXTurckNHainardAet al.p ROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinform2011; 12: 77.
