2012 Regular Game Rules
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Play by Play JPN 87 Vs 71 FRA FIRST QUARTER
Saitama Super Arena Basketball さいたまスーパーアリーナ バスケットボール / Basketball Super Arena de Saitama Women 女子 / Femmes FRI 6 AUG 2021 Semifinal Start Time: 20:00 準決勝 / Demi-finale Play by Play プレーバイプレー / Actions de jeux Game 48 JPN 87 vs 71 FRA (14-22, 27-12, 27-16, 19-21) Game Duration: 1:31 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Scoring by 5 min intervals: JPN 9 14 28 41 56 68 78 87 FRA 11 22 27 34 44 50 57 71 Quarter Starters: FIRST QUARTER JPN 8 TAKADA M 13 MACHIDA R 27 HAYASHI S 52 MIYAZAWA Y 88 AKAHO H FRA 5 MIYEM E 7 GRUDA S 10 MICHEL S 15 WILLIAMS G 39 DUCHET A Game JPN - Japan Score Diff. FRA - France Time 10:00 8 TAKADA M Jump ball lost 7 GRUDA S Jump ball won 15 WILLIAMS G 2PtsFG inside paint, Driving Layup made (2 9:41 0-2 2 Pts) 8 TAKADA M 2PtsFG inside paint, Layup made (2 Pts), 13 9:19 2-2 0 MACHIDA R Assist (1) 9:00 52 MIYAZAWA Y Defensive rebound (1) 10 MICHEL S 2PtsFG inside paint, Driving Layup missed 52 MIYAZAWA Y 2PtsFG inside paint, Layup made (2 Pts), 13 8:40 4-2 2 MACHIDA R Assist (2) 8:40 10 MICHEL S Personal foul, 1 free throw awarded (P1,T1) 8:40 52 MIYAZAWA Y Foul drawn 8:40 52 MIYAZAWA Y Free Throw made 1 of 1 (3 Pts) 5-2 3 8:28 52 MIYAZAWA Y Defensive rebound (2) 10 MICHEL S 2PtsFG inside paint, Driving Layup missed 8:11 52 MIYAZAWA Y 3PtsFG missed 15 WILLIAMS G Defensive rebound (1) 8:03 5-4 1 15 WILLIAMS G 2PtsFG fast break, Driving Layup made (4 Pts) 88 AKAHO H 2PtsFG inside paint, Layup made (2 Pts), 13 7:53 7-4 3 MACHIDA R Assist (3) 7:36 39 DUCHET A 2PtsFG outside paint, Pullup Jump Shot missed 7:34 Defensive Team rebound (1) 7:14 13 MACHIDA -
Offensive and Defensive Plus–Minus Player Ratings for Soccer
applied sciences Article Offensive and Defensive Plus–Minus Player Ratings for Soccer Lars Magnus Hvattum Faculty of Logistics, Molde University College, 6410 Molde, Norway; [email protected] Received: 15 September 2020; Accepted: 16 October 2020; Published: 20 October 2020 Abstract: Rating systems play an important part in professional sports, for example, as a source of entertainment for fans, by influencing decisions regarding tournament seedings, by acting as qualification criteria, or as decision support for bookmakers and gamblers. Creating good ratings at a team level is challenging, but even more so is the task of creating ratings for individual players of a team. This paper considers a plus–minus rating for individual players in soccer, where a mathematical model is used to distribute credit for the performance of a team as a whole onto the individual players appearing for the team. The main aim of the work is to examine whether the individual ratings obtained can be split into offensive and defensive contributions, thereby addressing the lack of defensive metrics for soccer players. As a result, insights are gained into how elements such as the effect of player age, the effect of player dismissals, and the home field advantage can be broken down into offensive and defensive consequences. Keywords: association football; linear regression; regularization; ranking 1. Introduction Soccer has become a large global business, and significant amounts of capital are at stake when the competitions at the highest level are played. While soccer is a team sport, the attention of media and fans is often directed towards individual players. An understanding of the game therefore also involves an ability to dissect the contributions of individual players to the team as a whole. -
Difference-Based Analysis of the Impact of Observed Game Parameters on the Final Score at the FIBA Eurobasket Women 2019
Original Article Difference-based analysis of the impact of observed game parameters on the final score at the FIBA Eurobasket Women 2019 SLOBODAN SIMOVIĆ1 , JASMIN KOMIĆ2, BOJAN GUZINA1, ZORAN PAJIĆ3, TAMARA KARALIĆ1, GORAN PAŠIĆ1 1Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, University of Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina 2Faculty of Economy, University of Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina 3Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, University of Belgrade, Serbia ABSTRACT Evaluation in women's basketball is keeping up with developments in evaluation in men’s basketball, and although the number of studies in women's basketball has seen a positive trend in the past decade, it is still at a low level. This paper observed 38 games and sixteen variables of standard efficiency during the FIBA EuroBasket Women 2019. Two regression models were obtained, a set of relative percentage and relative rating variables, which are used in the NBA league, where the dependent variable was the number of points scored. The obtained results show that in the first model, the difference between winning and losing teams was made by three variables: true shooting percentage, turnover percentage of inefficiency and efficiency percentage of defensive rebounds, which explain 97.3%, while for the second model, the distinguishing variables was offensive efficiency, explaining for 96.1% of the observed phenomenon. There is a continuity of the obtained results with the previous championship, played in 2017. Of all the technical elements of basketball, it is still the shots made, assists and defensive rebounds that have the most significant impact on the final score in European women’s basketball. -
First of All, It Felt Really Good to Be Back at Home After a Nine-Day Layoff. You Just Never Know How the Team Is Going to Come out and Respond
Mississippi State Women’s Basketball Quotes December 14, 2020 Troy Head Coach Nikki McCray-Penson “First of all, it felt really good to be back at home after a nine-day layoff. You just never know how the team is going to come out and respond. I thought this team had a really good shoot around. We talked about getting ready to go from the jump because we didn’t play the way we needed to play in our last game. It left a sour taste in our mouth when it came to our rebounding, free throws and turnovers. When I look at the stats tonight, one thing that really stands out is 29 assists on 41 made shots. We shot the ball extremely well. We had 41 rebounds, but we shot it well and didn’t miss a whole lot of shots. There’s still areas we have to get better at. We have to get better at free throws. Three for 10 is not going to win us games shooting it like that. We really concentrated a lot on our free throws. We gave up 20 offensive rebounds. Last year, this team gave up 27. We only gave up eight in the second half, but they shoot the ball a lot. It’s running rebounds that we have to continue to get under control. You have to rebound. Also, transition defense. I thought that because we had different combinations playing, transition defense got away from us. They scored 27 points off fast break points. We can’t let that happen. -
International Journal of Computer Science in Sport a Comprehensive
International Journal of Computer Science in Sport Volume 18, Issue 1, 2019 Journal homepage: http://iacss.org/index.php?id=30 DOI: 10.2478/ijcss-2019-0001 A comprehensive review of plus-minus ratings for evaluating individual players in team sports Lars Magnus Hvattum Faculty of Logistics, Molde University College, Molde, Norway Abstract The increasing availability of data from sports events has led to many new directions of research, and sports analytics can play a role in making better decisions both within a club and at the level of an individual player. The ability to objectively evaluate individual players in team sports is one aspect that may enable better decision making, but such evaluations are not straightforward to obtain. One class of ratings for individual players in team sports, known as plus-minus ratings, attempt to distribute credit for the performance of a team onto the players of that team. Such ratings have a long history, going back at least to the 1950s, but in recent years research on advanced versions of plus-minus ratings has increased noticeably. This paper presents a comprehensive review of contributions to plus- minus ratings in later years, pointing out some key developments and showing the richness of the mathematical models developed. One conclusion is that the literature on plus-minus ratings is quite fragmented, but that awareness of past contributions to the field should allow researchers to focus on some of the many open research questions related to the evaluation of individual players in team sports. KEYWORDS: RATING SYSTEM, RANKING, REGRESSION, REGULARIZATION IJCSS – Volume 18/2019/Issue 1 www.iacss.org Introduction Rating systems, both official and unofficial ones, exist for many different sports. -
SKILL DEVELOPMENT BLOCKS (45 Minutes)
SKILL DEVELOPMENT BLOCKS (45 minutes) Block A - Shooting/Offensive Skills 1. Active Warm-up with Ball (3 minutes) • Jog - ball taps • High Knees - right hand dribble • Butt Kicks - left hand dribble • Power Skip - power Lay-up • Karaoke - chin ball • Sprint/Pivot/Backpedal - speed dribble/pull-back dribble • Baby Crossover dribble 2. Stationary Two-ball Dribbling (3 minutes) • Same • Alternate • Push-pull • Kill • Cross-over • Between-the-legs 3. Partner Dribble-on-the-Move (5 minutes) 40 seconds for each set - dribble width of court - alternate turns Begin in Power Position - dribble to opposite side - jump stop - pivot - dribble back • Speed dribble (R/L) • Speed dribble/Pull-back/Go (R/L) • Speed dribble/Pull-back/Cross-over/ opposite hand speed dribble (R/L) • Open Court attack w/ move every 3rd dribble (cross-over, between-the-legs or wrap-around) • Two-ball dribbling 4. Shooting Progression - partners or 3ʼs (12 minutes) • Groove Shots: 3 swishes - step back - repeat - switch shooters on miss • 50% makes: shoot for 1:00 from same spot - on 2nd turn step back if 50%+, same spot if <50% • Touch spot-Shot spot: Baseline-wing, wing-point (right side-left side), catch & face- up w/ inside pivot foot (repeat 45-60 seconds) • Drive & Finish: Driver scores in lane - rebounds - spins out & repeat from various spots, partner slides to dribble-drive spot on each drive (repeat 45-60 seconds) • Drive & Kick: Driver penetrates in lane - jump stop - kicks out w/ overhead pass - partner slides to dribble-drive spot for shot (repeat 45-60 seconds) 5. Pro-Time (7 minutes) • Start on baseline - make move at hash before & after half-court - finish in lane - rebound & go to end of opposite line • Vary dribble moves - hesitation, cross-over, fake cross-over, pull-back, between legs, wrap around • Vary finish - Power lay-up, Pump & Power, Opposite-side Power, One-footed lay- up, Reverse lay-up, Lane pull-up off glass, Floater, Elbow pull-up, 3-point pull-up SKILL DEVELOPMENT BLOCKS (45 minutes) 6. -
Our Shining Moment: Hierarchical Clustering to Determine NCAA Tournament Seeding
Trunzo Scholz 1 Dan Trunzo and Libby Scholz MCS 100 June 4, 2016 Our Shining Moment: Hierarchical Clustering to Determine NCAA Tournament Seeding This project tries to correctly predict the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee’s bracket arrangement. We look both to correctly predict the 36 at large teams included in the tournament, and to seed teams in a similar way to the selection committee. The NCAA Tournament Selection Committee currently operates in secrecy, and the selection process is not transparent, either for teams or fans. If we successfully replicate the committee’s selections, our variable choices shed light on the “black box” of selection. As basketball fans ourselves, we hope to better understand which teams are in, which are out, and why Existing Selection Process 32 teams automatically qualify for the March NCAA tournament by winning their conference championship tournament. The other 36 “at large” teams are selected by the ten person committee through multiple voting rounds, where a team needs progressively fewer votes from the committee to make the tournament. Once the teams are selected, a similar process follows for seeding, where the selection committee ranks the best eight teams remaining, then the best six, and then the best four as more teams are placed in the bracket. Once all 68 teams are ranked, they are then placed in a bracket. At this point, the actual rank order may be violated to avoid “teams from the same conference… meet[ing] prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament,” or prior to the semifinals if they played at least twice. -
Proper Inflation of a Basketball by Josephine Corcoran and Ralph Rackstraw Revised by Alan Stockton for Astronomy 110 Abstract T
Proper Inflation of a Basketball by Josephine Corcoran and Ralph Rackstraw Revised by Alan Stockton for Astronomy 110 Abstract This paper describes an experiment to determine how to correctly inflate a basketball using a hand pump. A basketball is correctly inflated when it rebounds to approximately 60% of the height from which it is dropped. In this experiment, the basketball's rebound height is measured as a function of the number of strokes of the pump used to inflate it. We find that for the pump used in this experiment, 12 strokes gives the correct pressure in the basketball. We discuss the effects that the air temperature and the material from which the ball is made have on the accuracy of our results. Introduction Basketball is a game that relies on the skill of dribblingthat is, walking or running while bouncing the basketball on the floor. To play the game most effectively, players need to be able to rely on the rebounding of the ball off the floor as they move with it around the court. The "springiness" of the ball also affects shots that rebound off the backboard. The amount that the ball rebounds depends on how much air is used to inflate it. A ball with too little air is flat and difficult to dribble. A ball with too much air is too lively and more difficult to control when dribbling and shooting. Inflating a basketball with the correct amount of air is important to being able to play the game well. According to international basketball rules, a basketball is properly inflated "such that when it is dropped onto the playing surface from a height of about 1.80 m measured from the bottom of the ball, it will rebound to a height, measured to the top of the ball, of not less than about 1.2 m nor more than about 1.4 m” (Fédération Internationale de Basketball 1998). -
Official Basketball Statistics Rules Basic Interpretations
Official Basketball Statistics Rules With Approved Rulings and Interpretations (Throughout this manual, Team A players have last names starting with “A” the shooter tries to control and shoot the ball in the and Team B players have last names starting with “B.”) same motion with not enough time to get into a nor- mal shooting position (squared up to the basket). Article 2. A field goal made (FGM) is credited to a play- Basic Interpretations er any time a FGA by the player results in the goal being (Indicated as “B.I.” references throughout manual.) counted or results in an awarded score of two (or three) points except when the field goal is the result of a defen- sive player tipping the ball in the offensive basket. 1. APPROVED RULING—Approved rulings (indicated as A.R.s) are designed to interpret the spirit of the applica- Related rules in the NCAA Men’s and Women’s Basketball tion of the Official Basketball Rules. A thorough under- Rules and Interpretations: standing of the rules is essential to understanding and (1) 4-33: Definition of “Goal” applying the statistics rules in this manual. (2) 4-49.2: Definition of “Penalty for Violation” (3) 4-69: Definition of “Try for Field Goal” and definition of 2. STATISTICIAN’S JOB—The statistician’s responsibility is “Act of Shooting” to judge only what has happened, not to speculate as (4) 4-73: Definition of “Violation” to what would have happened. The statistician should (5) 5-1: “Scoring” not decide who would have gotten the rebound if it had (6) 9-16: “Basket Interference and Goaltending” not been for the foul. -
Measuring Production and Predicting Outcomes in the National Basketball Association
Measuring Production and Predicting Outcomes in the National Basketball Association Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Michael Steven Milano, M.S. Graduate Program in Education The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: Packianathan Chelladurai, Advisor Brian Turner Sarah Fields Stephen Cosslett Copyright by Michael Steven Milano 2011 Abstract Building on the research of Loeffelholz, Bednar and Bauer (2009), the current study analyzed the relationship between previously compiled team performance measures and the outcome of an “un-played” game. While past studies have relied solely on statistics traditionally found in a box score, this study included scheduling fatigue and team depth. Multiple models were constructed in which the performance statistics of the competing teams were operationalized in different ways. Absolute models consisted of performance measures as unmodified traditional box score statistics. Relative models defined performance measures as a series of ratios, which compared a team‟s statistics to its opponents‟ statistics. Possession models included possessions as an indicator of pace, and offensive rating and defensive rating as composite measures of efficiency. Play models were composed of offensive plays and defensive plays as measures of pace, and offensive points-per-play and defensive points-per-play as indicators of efficiency. Under each of the above general models, additional models were created to include streak variables, which averaged performance measures only over the previous five games, as well as logarithmic variables. Game outcomes were operationalized and analyzed in two distinct manners - score differential and game winner. -
Successful Shot Locations and Shot Types Used in NCAA Men's Division I Basketball"
Northern Michigan University NMU Commons All NMU Master's Theses Student Works 8-2019 SUCCESSFUL SHOT LOCATIONS AND SHOT TYPES USED IN NCAA MEN’S DIVISION I BASKETBALL Olivia D. Perrin Northern Michigan University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.nmu.edu/theses Part of the Programming Languages and Compilers Commons, Sports Sciences Commons, and the Statistical Models Commons Recommended Citation Perrin, Olivia D., "SUCCESSFUL SHOT LOCATIONS AND SHOT TYPES USED IN NCAA MEN’S DIVISION I BASKETBALL" (2019). All NMU Master's Theses. 594. https://commons.nmu.edu/theses/594 This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at NMU Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in All NMU Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of NMU Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. SUCCESSFUL SHOT LOCATIONS AND SHOT TYPES USED IN NCAA MEN’S DIVISION I BASKETBALL By Olivia D. Perrin THESIS Submitted to Northern Michigan University In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Office of Graduate Education and Research August 2019 SIGNATURE APPROVAL FORM SUCCESSFUL SHOT LOCATIONS AND SHOT TYPES USED IN NCAA MEN’S DIVISION I BASKETBALL This thesis by Olivia D. Perrin is recommended for approval by the student’s Thesis Committee and Associate Dean and Director of the School of Health & Human Performance and by the Dean of Graduate Education and Research. __________________________________________________________ Committee Chair: Randall L. Jensen Date __________________________________________________________ First Reader: Mitchell L. Stephenson Date __________________________________________________________ Second Reader: Randy R. -
FIBA, NBA and NCAA BASKETBALL RULE DIFFERENCES RULE FIBA NBA NCAA Duration of Game
FIBA, NBA and NCAA BASKETBALL RULE DIFFERENCES RULE FIBA NBA NCAA Duration of Game . .Four, 10-minute quarters . .Four, 12-minute quarters . .Two, 20-minute halves Overtime Duration . .Five minutes . .Five minutes . .Five minutes Duration Between Quarters . .Two minutes . .2.5 minutes; or 3.5 minutes for TV . .Not Applicable . .game Length of Halftime . .15 minutes . .15 minutes . .15 minutes Court Length . .91' 9" x 49' 2" . .94' x 50' . .94' x 50' Size of Lane . .16’ x 19' . .16' x 19' . .12' x 19' 3-Point FG Distance . .23’9” (22’ on baseline) . .23’9” (22’ on baseline) . .23’9” (22’ on baseline) No Charge Semicircles . .Yes (4’1.25” from center of basket) . .Yes (4’ from center of basket) . .Yes (4’ from center of basket) Shot Clock . .24 seconds . .24 seconds . .30 seconds Shot Clock Reset . .Reset to 14 seconds for offensive . .Reset when FG attempt hits rim . .Reset to 20 seconds for offensive . .rebound . .rebound Back Court Violation . .Eight seconds . .Eight seconds . .10 seconds Game Clock Stops After . .Last two minutes of 4th quarter and . .Last minute of 1st, 2nd, 3rd quarters; .Last minute of second half and Successful FG . .overtime . .Last two minutes of 4th and OT . .last minute of overtime Player Foul Limit . .Five or two technical/unsportsman . .Six . .Five Bonus Free Throw . .On fifth foul per quarter (two FTs); . .On fitth foul per quarter (two FTs) . .On seventh foul per half (1-and-1); . .Fourth quarter carries into OT . .On 10th foul per half (two FTs) Players Permitted on FT Lane .Five (three defensive, two offensive) .