REFERENCES

CONCLUSION

RESULTS

INTRODUCTION

METHODS

Leigh SHERMAN

Passing Frequency and the Effect on Scoring Variables and Outcomes in Basketball

u3037038@uni.canberra.edu.au In basketball, a team’s ability to score relies on the transition of the ball into an attacking court position via a combination of passing and/or dribbling. Previous research has looked at simple variable frequency occurrence such as the number of passes in isolation and how this may affect scoring opportunities (1). Other literature has suggested that one to two passes is associated with a higher level of success (2). Additional research alludes to fewer passes being advantageous in broken fast break play but also that winning teams make more passes in set offensive plays (3). This simple frequency data is only useful to an extent. Currently there is a lack of research looking at how these frequencies interact with other common basketball specific variables, such as defence and shooting, which have been included as the literature has also identified them as important components (4, 5).

The primary aim of this study will be to determine if there is an optimal number of passes that lead to more successful scoring opportunities. Additionally it will look at what interaction, if any, the other variables have with each other.

It is hypothesised that a low number of passes (1-2) will result in more successful scoring outcomes as it suggests a faster transition , drawing less pressure from both the opposition and shot clock.

A combination of hand and computer notational (using Microsoft Excel) analysis was used in lapsed time on 15 (n = 1035) games of the 2011 National Basketball Association (NBA) Playoffs. A total of 11 teams were included (Los Angeles Lakers, New Orleans Hornets, Chicago Bulls, Memphis Grizzlies, Atlanta Hawks, Boston Celtics, Miami Heat, New York Knicks, Oklahoma City Thunder, Dallas Mavericks and Denver Nuggets). Chi-squared analysis using IBM SPSS statistics 19 was used to analyse date.The variables recorded were:1.The number of passes in the lead up to a shot on goal*2.Shot position. The court was divided into three possible shooting areas: the key, zone and outside (Figure 1)3.Opposition pressure: classified as an opponent getting within one arm length of the ball at point of release4.The outcome of the shot, one of three outcomes was recorded: a successful shot, an unsuccessful shot or a free throw attempt. Should an opponent happen to successfully block or reject a shot it was recorded as an unsuccessful shot.

*only passing passages originating from the attacking teams defensive baseline resulting in a shot on goal or free throw were included. Plays that lead to turnovers, fouls (offensive or defensive), time-out’s etc. were not included.

Intra-reliability testing returned a Kappa value of 0.977, indicating a very good strength of agreement.

Figure 1: the three court zones according the rules of basketball(1)

Chi-squared analysis gave no indication of a relationship between the number of passes and scoring outcome X² (6, N= 1035) = 8.430, p = .208. The 7+ passes category was shown to be least likely to result in a successful scoring play at 31.6% (SR = -.5) in contrast to 3-4 passes which was the most likely of the passing categories to result in a successful shot at 37.6 % (SR = .4).

Additional Chi-square analysis revealed a significant relationship between opposition pressure and outcomeX² (2, N= 1035) = 63.249, p = <.001. Results also showed that 35.3% (SR = 4.2) of shots were successful when there was no opposition pressure (Figure 2) and of all unsuccessful shots 77.4% (SR = .5) were attempted under opposition pressure.

Figure 2: the affect of opposition pressure on shot outcome.

1)Fernandez, J et al. Int. J Sport Psych. 28: 65 20102) Stavroppulos, N and Foundalis, H. Inquiries in Sports & Phys. Ed. 3: 298-304 20053) Fernandez R, Ducoing, E. Iberian Congress on Basketball . Research. 4: 58-60, 20074)Alvarez, A et al. Iberian Congress on Basketball Research. 18: 370-384 20095)Piette, J et al. J. Quantitative Anal. In Sport. 6: 1-23 2010

Chi-square testing also found a relationship between shot position and shot outcome X²(4, N = 1035) = 63.249, p = < .001 (Figure 3).Of all free throws 79.5% (SR= 6.4) were awarded when attacking in the key. The key also accounted for 40.6% (SR= -.5) of successful shots (the highest of the outcome variables).

Figure 3: The affect of shot position and outcome

There was also found to be no significant relationship between the number of passes and shot position X² (6, N= 1035) = 5.943, p = .430Although not a statistically significant finding, analysis showed that 3-4 passes lead to the most shooting opportunities in the key at 42.4% (SR = .0) followed by 1-2 passes at 34.6%% (SR = 1.1)

In addressing the primary aim of the study, it was shown that the original hypothesis was incorrect and there was no statistical significance between the number of passes and scoring outcomes or the number of passes and shot position. Although there were trends in the data to suggest there may be a certain number of passes that are more advantages/disadvantageous, as suggested in the research (2): of all passages of play, the analysis showed that the 7+ passing plays were the most unsuccessful at31.6% while 3-4 passes were most successful at 37.6%.

Other findings, in accordance with the research (4), highlighted the significant advantage earned from a defensive perspective when applying pressure on a shooting opponent with 77.4% of missed shots coming while under defensive pressure. Likewise from an attacking perspective; 35.3% of unopposed shots were successful.

Further investigation into the data revealed that although the number of passes and shot position were not related, shot position and outcome were. When in the key, attacking teams drew 79.5% of their free throws, a massive advantage considering that they are essentially unopposed shots, the advantage of which was mentioned above and in literature (5). Additionally of all successful shots 40.6% came from within the key.

Taking into consideration the above findings, coaches should encourage players and develop plans that look to attack the key as much as possible as it holds the greatest potential for scoring opportunities, from both general play shots and free throw opportunities. As well as this they should also encourage the team to try and work into space and look for players with the opportunity to shoot unopposed as it greatly increases their chances of scoring. Likewise in defence they should be looking to ensure that whatever defensive structure is employed, it limits the chances of attacking teams to gain open