This article is republished with permission. It was written by DoSicko and originally appeared on HoopCoach.org.

Football coaches have long analyzed their team’s offensive and defensive efficiencies inside the red zones.  The thinking is simple, “We got inside the 20; we better damn well score.”  Teams have special red zone plays and red zone practice time.  And well they should; the effort to move the ball there and the relatively low number of possessions makes it incumbent on teams to come away with points once the ball is that deep in enemy territory.

Speaking of possessions, one of the inherent difficulties of coaching basketball is getting players to understand the value of a possession.  The high number of possessions in a basketball game at any level lends itself to thinking like this, “Big deal, we’ve got a zillion more possessions in this game; who cares if we turned it over or took a bad shot?”  This lack of understanding is not restricted to young players but is certainly more prevalent among lesser experienced players.  I remember asking players at camps how many possessions there were in a game.  Of course, the number depends on the playing tempo of both teams.  But many campers didn’t even have a clue.  Getting these players to first realize that possessions are finite is a start.

With that said, any device one can use to break the game down into smaller pieces for teaching purposes is extremely valuable.  One such breakdown is an analysis of how one’s team performs in basketball’s “red zone”.

It shouldn’t be difficult to designate a basketball red zone.  For me, it would clearly start with the key and most likely include the low blocks and the high post.  One could add the elbows and the mid-post areas, if one so chooses.  No matter.  It’s your analysis, so you make the call.

Before we get ahead of ourselves, it’s probably wise to dispel the importance of the concept of “points in paint”.  For years, this stat has been quoted like it’s totally conclusive.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  It merely indicates the number of points scored on field goals in the paint and ignores several other important types of points scored in addition to just field goals:

1. It does not include free throws scored directly on shooting fouls in the paint or at the low block.  For example, over the course of a game, if Team A makes 9 FT’s on shooting fouls “in the paint”, those points need to be added to the “points in the paint” tally.
2. It does not account for the FT’s made after the one-and-one kicks in-that were directly the result of a foul made before the bonus because of offensive penetration in the paint off the bounce or by pass.  For example, let’s say that 3 non-shooting fouls were committed because the ball entered the “red-zone” before the one-and-one kicked in and that the bonus kicked in at 7 fouls.  Theoretically, every “points in the paint” FT scored after the bonus is 3/7 or 42.9% attributable to fouls in the paint before the bonus.  If 12 FT’s were made after the bonus, then 12 X 42.9% is 5 points that needs to be added to the “points in the paint” tally.

So, let’s say that a game stat sheet said Team A scored 24 points in the paint.  If one adds the 9 FT’s scored on “in the paint shooting fouls” and the 5 FT’s scored on one and one FT’s scored after the bonus kicked in, the ACTUAL points in the point tally is 38 points (24+9+5).

Now, let’s go back to “red zone” analysis.  To accurately analyze red-zone efficiency, one must also add 2 and 3 point FG’s that were scored as a result of getting the ball into the “red zone”, as the defense adjusted to the penetration and the offense kicked the ball back out to the perimeter for a shot.  Let’s say that Team A makes 4- 2 point FG’s (8 points) and 5-3 point FG’s (15 points) attributable to red zone penetration, the total number of “red zone” points for Team A is 61 (24+9+5+8+15).

It’s obvious that the points in the paint total of 24 points on the stat sheet and the 61 “red zone” points tell two completely different stories and that “red zone” points is a far more telling stat than “points in the paint”.

To analyze “red zone” efficiency then, one needs to compute “red zone” penetrations and divide the points by penetrations. (perhaps in our hypothetical example 61 points divided by 47 penetrations or 1.290.  Obviously, this number, in of itself, only tells us something when compared to other games.  But the biggest advantage is that it helps coaches first understand patterns of success and failure. The bottom line is that the coach is constantly assessing these two questions, “How and why did we score when we get the ball in red zone and how and why didn’t we score?”  But, perhaps just as important as the success/failure ratio of red zone efficiency is just the simple concept of getting the ball there.  If players are totally cognizant of the importance of getting the ball there, their notion of the importance of each possession will also improve.

Then too, one can assess defensive “red zone” efficiency and the questions become, “How and why did we stop our opponent from scoring or how and why did our opponents score when they get the ball into the red zone.  The simple concept of preventing opponents from getting the ball in the red zone will also serve to help players realize the importance of each defensive possession.

Krossover Joins the Hudl Family

We’ve added Krossover to dou­ble down on our com­mit­ment to pro­vide teams more pow­er­ful tools, faster break­downs, and high­er qual­i­ty video.

——

Today, I’m thrilled to announce the addi­tion of Krossover to the Hudl fam­i­ly and to share our vision for help­ing teams make bet­ter, faster deci­sions with video and data.

Over the past decade, Krossover pio­neered full-ser­vice video analy­sis and broke down games for thou­sands of coach­es. They changed the game in our indus­try. But in that time, the demands of teams have steadi­ly increased. They need high­er qual­i­ty video, faster break­downs, in-game insights and more expo­sure for ath­letes. These are all areas we’re invest­ing in aggres­sive­ly and why we believe Hudl is a great long-term home for Krossover customers.

I’d like to take this moment to share how Krossover fits into our mis­sion and vision for the future.

Our mis­sion is two-fold.

First, we’re here to help our teams win and our coach­es become world-class. Sec­ond, and equal­ly impor­tant, we’re here to give you time back to focus on what mat­ters — whether that’s spend­ing more time with your ath­letes, with your fam­i­ly or in the classroom.

You demand more data, faster, with less effort.

Ten years ago, coach­es kept stats by hand and spent hours break­ing down game film. Five years ago, the sim­ple pair­ing of video and data on the Hudl plat­form gave teams an edge.

Today, the lev­el of com­pe­ti­tion and the impor­tance of data-dri­ven deci­sions are high­er than ever. The bur­den this places on coach­es is real and has pushed us to evolve the role we play for our teams. It’s not enough to put pow­er­ful tools at your fin­ger­tips — we need to bring the insights to you. That’s why we launched Hudl Assist in 2015 and are now bring­ing Krossover into the family.

Hudl cus­tomers will ben­e­fit from the extra analy­sis firepower.

With the addi­tion of Krossover, we’ll strength­en our ana­lyt­ics tools and break­down ser­vices. Their com­mu­ni­ty of ana­lysts will help us break down more than one mil­lion games this year, and their best prac­tices will help us improve our prod­ucts. Along the way, you’ll see faster turn­around times and even high­er break­down quality.

Our pace of inno­va­tion is accelerating.

Our pur­pose is more than help­ing you win the next game. We’re build­ing solu­tions that deliv­er insights as close to real-time as pos­si­ble so you and your ath­letes can make adjust­ments as the game unfolds.

Five years ago, we offered the abil­i­ty to record and upload video with our mobile app. Over half of our teams use that method today. But, we can’t stop there. Last year, we launched Hudl Focus, our smart cam­era that auto­mat­i­cal­ly records and uploads games and prac­tices. This year, we’re adding live stream­ing and will test Focus for out­door sports.

We’ve expand­ed Hudl to offer sport-spe­cif­ic tools across ath­let­ic depart­ments, includ­ing reports and break­downs for foot­ball, bas­ket­ball, vol­ley­ball, soc­cer, lacrosse and ice hockey.

And there’s more to come.

This month, we’re launch­ing detailed attack ten­den­cies reports for vol­ley­ball. In the com­ing months, we’ll roll out new insights for soc­cer, Hudl Assist for ice hock­ey, and improved video qual­i­ty for every team. That’s a small sam­ple of what’s com­ing soon.

In the not-so-dis­tant future, we see a world where every one of your games will be record­ed auto­mat­i­cal­ly. Video will stream to you on the side of the court or field along with exact­ly the data you need dur­ing the game. Your fans that can’t make it to the game will enjoy a pro­fes­sion­al-qual­i­ty live broad­cast. Every key moment will be assem­bled into playlists for half-time review and high­light reels will be added to ath­lete pro­files as they hap­pen. Your post-game review will be primed and ready the minute the final whis­tle blows, and the scout­ing report for your next oppo­nent will already be teed up.

Keep push­ing us.

Our vision is big because that’s what you deserve, and I’ve nev­er been more con­fi­dent that we’ll deliv­er on it. Krossover join­ing the Hudl fam­i­ly takes us a step clos­er to bring­ing it all to life.

Thank you.

John Wirtz, Hudl Co-Founder and Chief Prod­uct Officer

 

 

 

See what all the hype is about.

Hudl Focus is the hands-free smart camera that takes the hassle out of filming.

I want in.

Tell me more.

Orignially titled “The 40/60/80 Club”

By Stephen Shea, Ph.D. (@SteveShea33)

Originally Posted at: BasketballAnalyticsBook.com

Editor’s note from Brian: Yes you have to play to your individual players’ strengths, and some of your individual player’s strengths might be long 2s. The data is presented to stimulate some thought as to what types of skills you want to work on to develop in your players, and how you want to structure your offensive and defensive philosophy and tactics.

These are NBA data and the NBA 3 point arc is constructed differently than college and high school. I still believe that there are applications of this information to those levels.

Analytics have had no more obvious influence on the game of basketball than on shot selection, and the influence extends beyond the suggestion to take more threes.

The best shots are from behind the arc, at the hoop and at the free-throw line.

(The points per shot for free throws is for a 2 shot free throw situation)

Even though high school does not have a “restricted area,” you can still use the visual from college and professional games to get an idea where those shots are taken, even on a court without that marking.

As a result, NBA teams are taking half as many mid-range jumpers as they did 20 years ago. And there’s no sign of that trend slowing down.

If teams are strategizing to take more shots at the hoop, from three and from the free-throw line, then it’s only natural that they should want the players that are the most efficient from those regions.

We introduce the 40/60/80 Club, an exclusive group of go-to NBA scorers that shoot better than 40% from three, 60% from the restricted area and 80% from the free-throw line.

Editor’s note from Brian: Just an idea that you might be able to apply to your players. In my opinion, looking at overall field goal percentage (combining 2s and 3s as field goal attempts is not a very helpful statistic. Breaking shots into restricted area, other 2’s, 3’s and free throws give you a much better idea of where you are strong and where you need to improve–both from an offensive and defensive point of view.

Check out Hudl’s national high school performance report to find out how your team stacks up.

Compare your team’s performance to the nation’s best high school basketball programs and craft a better game plan. Their analysts have compiled all the performance metrics from Hudl Assist data to bring you a comprehensive look at what winning teams are doing.

Stats They Analyzed

Shooting performance

• Two- and three-pointers
• Layups
• Free throw efficiency

Average fouls per game

Defensive performance

• Blocks
• Rebounds
• Steals
• Turnovers
• Deflections

Get the free report.

By Stephen Shea, Ph.D. (@SteveShea33) and published on his blog:  Basketball Analytics.  You can find out more about Dr. Shea and his work in the field of Basketball Analytics below the article.

Editor’s Note from Brian The purpose of this post is to offer some ideas about applying these analytics to what you currently do and improve how you evaluate your offensive execution.  You probably won’t be able to apply all of this, but hopefully you can use parts of it to help your players understand and measure how you want your team to play on offense.  I have included screenshots of part of the tables as a way to add context to the points that Dr. Shea makes.

If you want to view the entire article including sortable data tables for all NBA teams, you can click here: What if Your Team had Houston’s Shot Selection I realize that the shorter distances for different 3 point shots does not apply to high school and college, but I also believe that there are specific spots on the arc that your players shoot better from, or at least favor as spots for 3 point attempts.

And, of course, we have to coach to our player’s strengths, but if we develop and play players whose strength is mid range, then we will be limited in the effectiveness of our offense, just as we would be limiting our offense if our primary ball handler could only dribble towards their strong hand.

I also realize that free throw shooting is even more efficient than field goal shooting, and that you are going to get to the line more frequently by attacking the basket. That has to be factored in. Free throw scoring efficiency is tied to the ability of the free throw shooter. A 70% free throw shooter will score, on average, 1.40 points per 2 shot free throw possession, which is better tan any of these. To me, that still points out that paint shots outside the restricted area and mid range shots are the worst ways to attempt to score.

As always, my goal is to provide food for you and your staff to use to work to improve your program. I do believe that analytics have a place in the decision making processes for basketball coaches, but that it is not the only tool to use.

End of Editor’s Note

What if your team had Houston’s shot selection?
Stephen Shea, Ph.D.

There are 5 major shooting zones on an NBA court: the restricted area (at the hoop), the paint (but not in the restricted area), mid-range, corners, and above the break. Among the zones, the paint and mid-range shots are, by far, the least efficient.

One team has leveraged this information to design a strategy that attempts to greatly reduce paint and mid-range shots. This season, just 7.6% of Houston’s field goal attempts have come from the paint and just 5.8% have come from mid-range. Both percentages are league lows.

Houston’s shot selection is far from the norm. While mid-range attempts are on the decline, many teams are still taking 20% or more of their shots from this inefficient region. What if they didn’t?

As a thought exercise, let’s suppose every team had Houston’s shot selection. We’ll keep each team’s field goal percentages from each zone the same. For example, Sacramento has shot 36.6% from mid-range this season and taken 28.1% of their shots from that region. We’ll assume Sacramento maintains their 36.6% but that they only take 7.6% of their FGA from mid-range (Houston’s percentage).

We’ll measure the team’s shooting efficiency by points per shot (PPS). The table below contains each team’s current PPS, their hypothetical PPS with Houston’s shot selection (labeled NewPPS), the difference between the hypothetical and actual PPS, and the additional points per game the team would score with Houston’s shot selection.

Shot selection can impact shooting efficiency, and so, it wouldn’t be fair to suggest that a team could radically alter their shot selection tomorrow and maintain their shooting efficiencies from each zone. Still, when we see that a team like Sacramento would produce 12.6 more points per game with their current field goal percentages and Houston’s shot selection, we have to ask, why aren’t they trying?