Basketball teams as strategic networks.

We asked how team dynamics can be captured in relation to function by considering games in the first round of the NBA 2010 play-offs as networks. Defining players as nodes and ball movements as links, we analyzed the network properties of degree centrality, clustering, entropy and flow centrality ac...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jennifer H Fewell, Dieter Armbruster, John Ingraham, Alexander Petersen, James S Waters
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3490980?pdf=render
id doaj-61151dce74d741689260912d9bd0074c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-61151dce74d741689260912d9bd0074c2020-11-25T01:00:09ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032012-01-01711e4744510.1371/journal.pone.0047445Basketball teams as strategic networks.Jennifer H FewellDieter ArmbrusterJohn IngrahamAlexander PetersenJames S WatersWe asked how team dynamics can be captured in relation to function by considering games in the first round of the NBA 2010 play-offs as networks. Defining players as nodes and ball movements as links, we analyzed the network properties of degree centrality, clustering, entropy and flow centrality across teams and positions, to characterize the game from a network perspective and to determine whether we can assess differences in team offensive strategy by their network properties. The compiled network structure across teams reflected a fundamental attribute of basketball strategy. They primarily showed a centralized ball distribution pattern with the point guard in a leadership role. However, individual play-off teams showed variation in their relative involvement of other players/positions in ball distribution, reflected quantitatively by differences in clustering and degree centrality. We also characterized two potential alternate offensive strategies by associated variation in network structure: (1) whether teams consistently moved the ball towards their shooting specialists, measured as "uphill/downhill" flux, and (2) whether they distributed the ball in a way that reduced predictability, measured as team entropy. These network metrics quantified different aspects of team strategy, with no single metric wholly predictive of success. However, in the context of the 2010 play-offs, the values of clustering (connectedness across players) and network entropy (unpredictability of ball movement) had the most consistent association with team advancement. Our analyses demonstrate the utility of network approaches in quantifying team strategy and show that testable hypotheses can be evaluated using this approach. These analyses also highlight the richness of basketball networks as a dataset for exploring the relationships between network structure and dynamics with team organization and effectiveness.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3490980?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jennifer H Fewell
Dieter Armbruster
John Ingraham
Alexander Petersen
James S Waters
spellingShingle Jennifer H Fewell
Dieter Armbruster
John Ingraham
Alexander Petersen
James S Waters
Basketball teams as strategic networks.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Jennifer H Fewell
Dieter Armbruster
John Ingraham
Alexander Petersen
James S Waters
author_sort Jennifer H Fewell
title Basketball teams as strategic networks.
title_short Basketball teams as strategic networks.
title_full Basketball teams as strategic networks.
title_fullStr Basketball teams as strategic networks.
title_full_unstemmed Basketball teams as strategic networks.
title_sort basketball teams as strategic networks.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2012-01-01
description We asked how team dynamics can be captured in relation to function by considering games in the first round of the NBA 2010 play-offs as networks. Defining players as nodes and ball movements as links, we analyzed the network properties of degree centrality, clustering, entropy and flow centrality across teams and positions, to characterize the game from a network perspective and to determine whether we can assess differences in team offensive strategy by their network properties. The compiled network structure across teams reflected a fundamental attribute of basketball strategy. They primarily showed a centralized ball distribution pattern with the point guard in a leadership role. However, individual play-off teams showed variation in their relative involvement of other players/positions in ball distribution, reflected quantitatively by differences in clustering and degree centrality. We also characterized two potential alternate offensive strategies by associated variation in network structure: (1) whether teams consistently moved the ball towards their shooting specialists, measured as "uphill/downhill" flux, and (2) whether they distributed the ball in a way that reduced predictability, measured as team entropy. These network metrics quantified different aspects of team strategy, with no single metric wholly predictive of success. However, in the context of the 2010 play-offs, the values of clustering (connectedness across players) and network entropy (unpredictability of ball movement) had the most consistent association with team advancement. Our analyses demonstrate the utility of network approaches in quantifying team strategy and show that testable hypotheses can be evaluated using this approach. These analyses also highlight the richness of basketball networks as a dataset for exploring the relationships between network structure and dynamics with team organization and effectiveness.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3490980?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT jenniferhfewell basketballteamsasstrategicnetworks
AT dieterarmbruster basketballteamsasstrategicnetworks
AT johningraham basketballteamsasstrategicnetworks
AT alexanderpetersen basketballteamsasstrategicnetworks
AT jamesswaters basketballteamsasstrategicnetworks
_version_ 1725214944560939008