Sports markets are not as efficient as financial markets. Nonetheless, the concept of market efficiency does have important implications for sports.
Consider how the NBA has evolved in response to the three point shot. Teams gradually learned that the best strategy was to take lots of three point shots (long shots) and layups (relatively easy 2 point shots.) A recent article in The Ringer describes how defenses have adjusted to this optimal strategy so that “quality shots” are now more difficult:
In a league that has spent the past decade learning the mathematical advantage of a layups-and-3s offensive philosophy, every indication should be that Houston would be shooting more efficiently and thus playing better than Brooklyn. And yet, anyone paying attention to the standings would know that the opposite is the case: The 7-16 Rockets rank 22nd in effective field goal percentage (eFG%), while the 16-7 Nets rank sixth.
For a long time across the NBA, a team’s shot distribution could reasonably predict its offensive success: Take good shots, enjoy good results. Simple. But that relationship, which had declined each season for the past half-decade, is now gone—and may not be coming back. Shot quality doesn’t matter anymore—and both team-building and on-court strategies might have to shift their focus as a result.
I recall when there was a major inefficiency in professional football. I often used to be secretly pleased when the opposing team punted on 4th and 1 at midfield. But why should the decision of the opposing coach make me happy? His job is to make me unhappy. My intuition was telling me that NFL coaching was bad. With the advent of “analytics”, football coaching has improved in recent years, and teams go for it on 4th down more often than in the past. But for each strategy change there is a response:
For teams wanting to retain an analytical edge, it’s on to the next market inefficiency.
Sports are less efficient than financial markets because there is no easy way for most informed observers to profit from market inefficiencies. Only a few people, such as coaches on other teams (say Bill Belichick) could take advantage of bad coaching. Nonetheless, sports efficiency does gradually improve over time. With apologies to Martin Luther King, the arc of sports strategy is long, but it bends toward efficiency.
Of course efficiency in sports can be boring, and hence it makes sense to occasionally change the rules when smart coaches and players figure out boring but effective strategies. What about moving the three point line in basketball back a bit? And would professional tennis be more fun for fans if the net were three inches higher? Would there be a greater variety of shots?
READER COMMENTS
Garrett
Dec 13 2021 at 4:36pm
Other interesting football trends driven by analytics are teams going for 2 more and passing more on 1st and 2nd-and-long.
Part of me thinks football would be more fun for fans if punting were removed from the game. I haven’t enjoyed watching special teams since Devin Hester.
bb
Dec 14 2021 at 10:35am
Scott,
I always enjoy your basketball posts. I’m not a fan of simply moving the 3-point line back. My recommended fixes in order of preference, not practicality, is change the 3-point shot to a 2.5 point shot (3s are cool, they just count too much relative to field goals; eliminate the 3 point shot (I personally like playing on courts with no 3 point line, and I’m a decent 3-point shooter); and finally just extend the 3 point line into the sideline. Taking away the corner 3 would have a huge impact on the flow of the game. I think eliminating the corner 3 would be much more interested that moving the 3 point line back and leaving the corner 3 in place. Mostly, just bring back hand checking and reward defensive position.
As for the NBA being efficient, the fact that well run teams consistently manage to reload and compete year after year, while teams like mine flounder in mediocrity, proves it’s an efficient league.
robc
Dec 14 2021 at 11:23am
I think basketball is at its most aesthetically pleasing when the 12 ft jumper is part of the game.
Fractional points dont work, but maybe something like an additional line at ~10 ft, inside it is 2 pts, between the lines is 3 pts, long is 4 pts.
And I like the idea of eliminating the corner 3. Or, in my case, the corner 4, as it would be between the lines, so would be a 3.
zeke5123
Dec 14 2021 at 1:56pm
The other solution is to make 2 point shots worth 3 and 3 point shots worth 4.
Take FTs and ORB out of the calculation. Right now, you only need to shoot better than 33.3% on 3 pointers to prefer in most situations a 3 pointer compared to shooting a 2 pointer made at 50%. At 3 points and 4 points, the math changes to 37.5%. It seems the percentage right now is around 35% and the average 2 point shot is scored at a 52% clip. So this simple change should decrease the quantum of 3 point shots taken.
robc
Dec 14 2021 at 4:26pm
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-mapping-shots-in-the-nba-changed-it-forever/
Look at the graph at the bottom of this page. Your solution would help shrink the purple somewhat, but doesn’t solve the problem the 3 pt shot was designed to help with…the game being dominated by big guys underneath. It isn’t a bad solution and has the advantage of being easier to make than mine. While it decreases the 3 pt shot, it wont increase the midrange shot much. There will just be more short range shots.
So you need some sort of advantage to the midrange shot to get those to reappear. The 2-3-4 shot system does that better. But it won’t happen.
bb
Dec 14 2021 at 11:06pm
zeke
I love both of those ideas. The ratio of value between the two shots is the biggest problem. Playing half court with 2s and 1s is some of the most boring games I’ve ever played in.
bb
Dec 14 2021 at 11:14pm
robc,
Agree on all points. Especially about aesthetics. Also, a 12 footer is a tough shoot. Catch and shoot from the three point line where your range is always the same is actually an easier shot for me than pulling up somewhere off the elbow.
BTW: this might be the first time my 2.5 point line was laughed out of the room. Appreciate the open minds here.
Scott Sumner
Dec 14 2021 at 8:29pm
Those are also good ideas. I’d just get rid of the three entirely, but it won’t happen. They should also increase the penalty for fouls on fast breaks, and reduce the penalty from fouling a three point shooter from 3 foul shots to two.
Also get rid of the kicked ball rule when the kick is accidental. Play on. Also play on when there’s a ball stuck at the rim. Also play on when the ball bounces off the shot clock. And don’t call jump balls so quickly. And don’t call jump balls when the shooter comes down with the shot after being blocked–just play on.
And get rid of the replay challenges.
All this would speed the game up.
zeke5123
Dec 14 2021 at 10:01pm
I like the idea of making fouls on 3s only two FTs. You would see players more aggressively contest 3pt shots since the downside of contesting aggressively decreases by probably 0.8 expected points. Intuitively, this would lead to lower 3Pt % thereby increasing the relative value of 2pters.
bb
Dec 14 2021 at 11:10pm
Scott,
I agree on all points. Playing pickup without a three point line is more fun, and I’m a better 3 point shooter than midrange, but the game just flows more.
And the game is way too officiated. Some of the best calls I’ve ever seen were no-calls.
robc
Dec 15 2021 at 9:15am
For fouls, I would change a bonus or in the act of shooting foul to 1 shot and ball out of bounds. If the shot is made, just the 1 shot.
This totally changes the dynamic at the end of games, as intentional fouling serves no purpose.
Michael Rulle
Dec 16 2021 at 11:37am
Unlike baseball, in basketball, almost any given league wide statistic is impacted by the given style of play. Per Scott’s reasonably valid description of 3’s and short 2’s as the recent target zone for offenses, the following stat has to be qualified accordingly.
However, approximately 33% of points scored are from 3s, 15% from foul shots and 52% from 2s. FG percentage for each is 34% for 3s, 53% for 2s and 75% for foul shots. As there are very few fouls called on 3s, one can say that 67% of all points are from inside play. Counting foul shots as inside play, it has about a 55% 2pt shot equivalent, and the 3 has a 51% 2pt shot equivalent. Not sure the volatility of either ——in point terms ——are much different. I doubt it. Although in percent terms, I assume 3s have higher vol.
Now what—-as it relates to efficiency? I do not know.
But I see no evidence at all that the 3 pt line should be moved back. Why? Scoring seems reasonably distributed —-of course we do not have the average length of the 2. The 3 was created because if it was not, the league would be all inside big men. The 3 saved the NBA. Moving it back so the percent drops into high 20s can reach a “tipping point” where it is not useful at all.
Where the next analytical move will come from, despite what The Ringer says, is from optimizing shot quality. This will have to come from the current 13 year olds as we train them to shoot from all spots on the floor and be taught how to move and pass from anywhere on the court. In fact, this sounds a lot like the Warriors. It also sounds a lot like the top women’s teams. It also sounds a lot like Geno Auriemma’s ideal players——of whom we can name many.
robc
Dec 16 2021 at 11:57am
Sure we do. See the 538 link I posted above.
Michael Rulle
Dec 17 2021 at 8:10am
Thanks robc. I keep forgetting 538 started in sports.
Their author runs a bunch of important and interesting stats——But he makes subjective conclusions—-the most egregious being that the 2 point shot has lost its importance. More points are scored from 3 than 10-30 years ago—-but still only 1/3rd of points. Why is that “too much”? What has lost my interest in the NBA (which I watch and am a Nets fan) is the semi-ISO dominance of play. The Warriors (who Kerr adapted a version of the Winter-Jackson “triangle”—-designed for optimal shot placement)brought back exciting basketball. Movement, little dribbling, quick touch passes etc. The good teams do more of this. Atkinson, the previous Net coach, really got a bunch of nobodies to play well doing this.
Anyway—-that’s the kind of play I prefer.
J Mann
Dec 17 2021 at 5:13pm
Of interest, here’s Freddie DeBoer arguing that strategic innovations have ruined baseball, and that the leagues should change the rules so that a more enjoyable game is dominant.
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/yes-sabermetrics-ruined-baseball
Michael Rulle
Dec 18 2021 at 9:04am
Mr Mann makes a good opening point. And I believe that the stats guys can and do add value. And I also believe that the stats guys have gone both overboard (all players wearing wrist bands to tell them what to do) that cause players to lose the feel and flow of the game—-while simultaneously being very slow on adapting to and reacting to offset the new stats.
But these are all permitted by the rules of the game from 100+ years ago ——so we do not need rule changes (although, I could easily accept an average pitch clock of 15 seconds or less—so sue me) ——we need people in the GM’s office who have a clue about playing baseball.
What they do not understand (to paraphrase Hamlet—why not?) is there are “more situations which spontaneously arise in a baseball game than can be dreamt of in any stat teams scenarios”.
But, this too will pass. I like advancement (Cobb, who respected Ruth greatly, thought he ruined baseball) and disagreement. No new rules (accept a clock—:-)) —-let spontaneous order solve the problems——of which we always have perceived.
Comments are closed.