YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

    Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

    To get started, first
    Ball Don't Lie

    Kobe Bryant isn’t always into mixing science and basketball

    Kobe Bryant learns his new point guard is a Bunsen burner (Stephen Dunn/Getty).

    Among the players of his era, Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant has always stood out for treating basketball like a problem to be solved rather than simply a game he plays. Kobe is obsessive in his attempts to get better, to the point where he'd presumably consider any bit of knowledge or practice any skill if he thought it'd make him a better player. Everything is in service of the continual improvement of his game.

    So it's a bit surprising to hear that he thinks a new study on the best time to shoot in a possession is full of baloney. From Kyle Stack for Wired.com (via TBJ):

    Brian Skinner, a physics research associate at the University of Minnesota, explored the nature of shot attempts in the NBA. In his paper, published in the online journal PLoS ONE, Skinner said he wanted to determine when a player should take the shot. "Within this model I derive an answer to the question 'how likely must the shot be to go in before the player should take it?,'" Skinner wrote.

    He discovered through an analysis of scoring situations that NBA players often wait too long to shoot and it could cost teams an average of 4.5 points per game. Rather than take the sure thing early in a possession, players wait it out, taking time off the clock and hoping to make another, possibly tougher, shot pay off. Although that denies their opponent a chance to respond, it also deprives their own team of a chance at a basket before the shot clock expires. [...]

    Yeah, whatever, Bryant responds. He told Wired.com after a recent matchup with the New York Knicks that there are countless variables, and his decision to shoot — or not shoot, as the case may be — depends upon who's on the floor, where they're standing and how much time is left on the clock.

    "If I can kick it to somebody, a lot of times I wind up getting a hockey assist, so it just depends on how much time I have left," Bryant said. "If there's a chance to pass and swing [to another player] for another opportunity, that's fine. If there's not, then I have to create space and get a shot up, understanding that there are two [players] on me and it's going to be a great opportunity for us to get an offensive rebound."

    Skinner's study isn't perfect, in large part because it discounts the psychological complications of deciding a good shot in the flow of a possession. When Kobe has the ball, it's difficult for him to settle for a decent shot early in the clock when he has such strong belief in his ability to find a better one over the next 10 or 15 seconds. His success as a player depends on having complete confidence in his abilities, and a situation in which he questions his chances to get a better shot on a large portion of possessions could have negative effects on his entire game.

    That's not to say this study is useless, just that it works best as a suggestion rather than a piece of irrefutable logic built to overhaul the NBA game overnight. NBA conventional wisdom is constructed through repetition, in a way that turns the monotony of practicing one shot or thinking about a possession in one way over and over again into something that resembles instinct. As with anything else, this study could help Bryant and other players if they absorb its findings over time. That would involve a lot of work — studying tape, playing five-on-five ball in practice to understand the form of the possession, etc. — but that's the only way to make an abstract study like this one more concrete.

    Science like this can't just be adopted — there needs to be a culture that accepts it. And while Bryant might be willing to do anything to make his game better, he can't be expected to change his ways overnight. Practice made him what he is today, and that's the only way he'll become something different, too.

    Watch Full Count!
     
    • boohoo  •  3 months ago
      This ain't science, it's a joke. There are countless variables that this study doesn't take into account because it'll be too exhaustive and frankly, too much work. My money's on pro athletes and coach's.
      • Jason 3 months ago
        My money is on your terrible grasp of proper grammar.
      • steve jones 3 months ago
        "This ain't science..." I can assure you boohoo that you probably never graduated high school, or middle school for that matter. You are either from rural Atlanta or some ghetto, either way please stay there.
      • The Doug 3 months ago
        You guys are a-holes. Seriously--the guy uses punctuation and capitalization, so he's in the top 15% of people who type. I have an engineering degree from UCLA and I might say "This ain't science" to add a bit of character to my statement. Also, both of my Mom's parents were from Mississippi, so I mainly think it's okay to use "ain't" in some situations. I use colloquialisms to add character to my informal writing, but that doesn't mean I didn't finish middle school.

        More importantly, he's right. From what is explained in this article, it's a weak attempt at science, at best. He doesn't bother to consider a ton of important factors:
        -"Rather than take the sure thing early in a possession, players wait it out, taking time off the clock..." All teams take uncontested layups early in the clock. So what's this guy's definition of a "sure thing"? The only time players pass on "sure things" is at the end of the game when they want to waste 4 more seconds. Is a "sure thing" an uncontested shot or a dunk?
        -A shot going in isn't always the goal of a shot. Sometimes it's merely because you have the rebounders pulled away to guard you and you want Bynum to clean up. Sometimes it's to draw a foul.
        -"Taking up the clock denies the opponent a chance to respond"--What sport does he think this is? Football? In basketball, they'll always get a chance to respond unless we're talking about the final 2 minutes, in which case there is a lot more to consider.

        This ain't science, it's a joke.
    • peter  •  Manchester, United Kingdom  •  3 months ago
      Simply nonsense - please don't give this rubbish the time of day
    • dw  •  3 months ago
      I would prefer to trust the instincts of a proven great player who has led his team to championships, than the proponent of an academic study who has never been in such a situation himself.
      • Rhoney Co 3 months ago
        Numbers do not lie.
      • Mindless 3 months ago
        One word for you: Moneyball.

        Number crunching has its place.
      • b 3 months ago
        Kobe Bryant is not the best decision maker in basketball. He has the best toolbox, confidence, competitiveness and ability to concentrate. His decisions however are very questionable. He has two dominant big men on his team, who have great offensive and defensive skills. Yet, he frequently chooses to put the cape on and relegate his solid teammates into observers of his superiority.
    • bay_area  •  Pleasanton, California  •  3 months ago
      Somebody tell this Professor, When u shoot, u shoot, u dont talk (over-analyze)!
      • PAPA 3 months ago
        ....you mean you don't 'talk to yourself...."should I or shouldn't I take this shot?", maybe I should, after all I DO have the ball",etc'...the way we know Karl did before EVERY free throw...JEEESH!
      • gamachameleon 3 months ago
        Hey Bay_area just wanted you to know that I caught the movie reference even if Jo didn't. You made my day.
    • Drawline  •  Lawrence, Kansas  •  3 months ago
      As a physicist myself: This is a case of selective data. If you go to the 1970's and 1980's the shot selection was different, the strategy was different. Why? The main reason is that the players now need to run across the floor with, on average, 20 Lb more of muscle and are not as good at just running. They need to catch their breadth. I bet that in this shortened season there is even more of a tendency to shoot at the end of the shot clock.
      • Dusty 3 months ago
        A "physisicist" in Lawrence, KS...whio can't spell and who cites exactly no research and simple decades without regard of what players were available in those eras? Ahhh!!!!!!! What a terrible representation of Kansas! IDIOT! Gosh..." The main reason" thats physics?!?!?! JERK
      • Clark 3 months ago
        I am guessing that Drawline can and did spell 'physicist' correctly. I bet also he knows how to spell 'who'. Why would someone berate someone on here as a JERK and IDIOT for simply posting a comment? I invite all courteous comments in reply to my comment. ;)
    • Grant S  •  Miami, Florida  •  3 months ago
      in other words, this guy is a Mike D'Antoni Quant.
    • New World Man  •  Algonquin, Illinois  •  3 months ago
      The study simply indicates that if the shot is there early in the possesion, then it's better to go ahead and take it rather than wait. It's a good, scientific bit of knowledge that an benefit a coach or athlete. Just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're perfect, and the best use all knowledge that they can to get an edge. This is such kind of knowledge.
    • Rey  •  3 months ago
      As said before. They didn't and could factor in all the variables. How about if you a double team or even triple in Kobe's case sometimes. Who's open? What play? Too many factors. Basketball is a team sport. This study breaks it down as if it were one on one.
      • Rockin Bob 3 months ago
        That's why Bryant was asked!
      • Rey 3 months ago
        Bob I'm guessing you don't watch basketball much. Because certainly don't watch Lakers games.
    • Jack  •  San Jose, California  •  3 months ago
      Kobe sucks
    • Aaron  •  3 months ago
      Kobe Bryant. The record holder in hockey assists.
    • Rockin Bob  •  Elmhurst, Illinois  •  3 months ago
      The study is not worth the hype! However, I sure wouldn't have someone like Bryant analyze it either! He's not exactly the inventor of the game. He shoots and that's what guys like him learned to do! Me basketball, not having to think on the court,,just in your face, take it to the hoop! A player who can actually comprehend real basketball theory should be involved in the study. There are few of them!
    • fernando  •  Houston, Texas  •  3 months ago
      Maybe Kobe should go over the book and proof read it. Make it more realistic, coming from a "Player"
    • Johnny  •  3 months ago
      More basketball physics: If you don't release the ball, there will be a 100% chance that it will not make it into the hoop.
    • Nicholas V  •  Irvine, California  •  3 months ago
      Take it easy KB lot of fun ahead
    • Anthony  •  3 months ago
      The study is correct...except that means more defensive stops are needed and that's what really wears on the players.
    • Rhinogold  •  Prince George, Canada  •  3 months ago
      It's a start you whiney buggers
    • Lennan  •  Beachwood, Ohio  •  3 months ago
      For the record, this was basically D'Antoni and Nash's offense on the Suns and was one of the best offenses of the modern era. If Amare and Nash had ever been introduced to defense those teams would've won championships.
    • A Yahoo! User  •  Roanoke, Virginia  •  3 months ago
      I read his crappy study and he has the cause and effect completely wrong. He isn't even a basketball fan so he has no clue what he's talking about. It's like saying the rooster's crow causes the sun to come up every morning because it might coincide.
    • F-FACE  •  3 months ago
      You mean if you take more shots (using less time per possession), you may score more points? Wow. what a break through! I have been critical of Bryant as of late but his response is right on. Next.
    • Fan  •  3 months ago
      The study looks very generic. THey probably aggregated large large amount of shooting data from all kinds of players to come up with this conclusion.

      So unless you are the absolute "mediocre NBA player", this conclusion is pretty useless for you.

      For example, a guard might be able to maneuver some room if given few second, a power forward or center might want to take the shot as soon as possible before he get double teamed. Every individual also have different styles, so this academic study is pretty useless even if its true.

    Yahoo! Sports Authors