Is the 3-points game taking over NBA basketball

 The short answer is not yet.  The graph below shows that 2-points still make over 50% of overall points.  Granted, 3-points have steadily risen since the 1979-1980 NBA season when 3-points were first introduced in the NBA.  It took a while for the players to adapt their skills and coaches to evolve their strategies to leverage the benefits of 3-points shots. 

 

 

The big difference over time is how much more aggressive players have become in attempting 3-points shots.  Until the 2011 - 2012 season, teams were attempting less than twenty 3-points shots per game.  The number has exploded to over 35 during the most recent two seasons. 

 

 

 Something to keep in mind is that the 3-points shooting skill of a team has only a rather moderate to weak relationship with a team's overall performance or ranking.  And, that is another way to consider that 3-points shooting is not dominant in the NBA or even determinant in NBA team's success. 

The graph above (using the NBA 2020-2021 season data) indicates that 3-points ranking of a team explains only 15% of the variance in the overall ranking of a team (R Square = 0.1485) and vice versa.  If 3-points ranking explained 100% of the overall ranking, the red regression trend line would be perfectly diagonal across the squares on the grid.  And, the regression equation would be: y = 1(x) + 0.  Or in plain English: 3-points ranking = Overall ranking.  As shown, this is far from this situation.  

 

Here are the top 5 leaders in 3-points baskets.  

Notice that two of them are still active: Stephen Curry (33 years old), and James Harden (32).  One would expect Curry to soon become the top leader; and, James Harden to move into the third spot.  By the end of their respective career, Curry and Harden may very well occupy the top 2 spots. 

A closer look at the top 5 record on a per game basis. 

What tables A and B indicate is that the contemporary players (Curry and Harden) have been far more productive in scoring 3-pts shots.  And, the main reason behind their success is that they have been far more aggressive in attempting 3-pts shots (see table B). 

In terms of accuracy (table C for 3-pts success rate), Kyle Korver, a player from another generation pretty much towers over the field.  But, his higher success rate did not matter much given that he made so fewer 3-points attempts per game than Curry and Harden (see table B). 

Curry's 3-points talent is in good part not reflected in any of the above statistics.  Curry differentiates himself from the field with his unique ability to score 3-points baskets from "way downtown", often at or even past mid-court.  Unfortunately, this superlative achievement is not rewarded with any scoring points benefits.  

Harden is a very different player.  While nearly as aggressive as Curry in attempting 3-points shots (table B).  He is not nearly as accurate (lower success rate as shown in table C).  In recent seasons, Harden has also somewhat lessened his focus on 3-points shots attempts (table B).  On the other hand, Harden is a very dynamic and diversified player.  And, his claim to fame may not be just his 3-points shooting skills, but his mesmerizing dribbling across his legs in a crouching tiger type position that has rendered him the most "unguardable" player in the NBA.  

Next question worth considering is how long can we expect Curry to perform at top level in 3-points shooting?  

Well, the short answer is for a pretty long time.  The graph below shows the record of Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, and Kyle Korver who rounded the top 5 in 3-points shooting.  We looked at their 3-points success per game (number of baskets) and their related success rate.  The graph shows their respective performance as they aged.  We used the average of their respective performance over 6 seasons when they were from 28 to 33 years old.  We used this average as a baseline index = 100.  And, next we divided each year specific performance by the 28 -33 average and multiplied it by a 100.  This allowed us to measure precisely how their respective performance declined as they aged beyond 33 years old. 

The left hand graph shows that Miller and Korver maintained their 3-points success per game very well as they aged.  At 38 years old, they were still performing at 80% of their average level at 28 to 33 years old. 

The right hand graph shows that all three players maintained their respective 3-points success rate remarkably well as they aged.  Shooting accuracy just does not seem to deteriorate with age.  

 

Curry is now 33.  In view of the above, it is rather likely that he would be very close to or at top form over the next three years (34, 35, 36).  Beyond 36, he may experience a mild decline in 3-points success per game.  But, he may still be relatively formidable in that category compared to other players. 

 

We could say the same thing for Harden (32).  However, Harden has apparently been much less focused on 3-points shooting during the most recent two seasons. 

 

I actually do not follow basketball.  Seeing everyday pictures of Curry on the cover of the sport page of my daily newspaper, I eventually caught Curry fever.  In view of that, I welcome comments, corrections.  And, I would gladly edit and improve this blog entry over time.  

 

If you want to read my complete study on the subject, check the two links below. 

 

Basketball study at Slideshare.net   

Basketabll study at SlidesFinder

Is Japan indicative of the future of the US?

Japan leads the US towards a path associated with:
a) a decreasing fertility rate much below replacement rate;
b) an aging society;
c) a declining population growth;
d) a slowing economy; and
e) an increasingly leveraged Public finance position (large Budget Deficits, very high Public/Debt ratio).

However, the two countries are likely to continue diverging materially on several counts:

a) The US population growth is already declining.  But, it is likely to remain positive and much above Japan.  That is because the US benefits from a robust net migration of close to + 1.5% of the population per year vs. only 0.5% for Japan; 

b) Health status and healthcare costs metrics will likely continue to show Japan with far better health outcome associated with far lower health care costs.  This is in good part because of the inputs.  Japanese are far healthier than Americans.  And, these divergences appear likely to continue; 

c) Japan is likely to continue outperforming the US on primary school indicators; 

d) The US is likely to continue outperforming Japan on university level indicators and the generation of science and engineering degrees and papers. 

I have conducted a detailed analysis of all of the above that I share at: 

Study at Slideshare.net

Study at SlidesFinder  

I share these two different platform access options, as I don't know which one is easiest to access.

Below I am sharing just a few of the key slides of this analysis.
The slide below discloses that over the next 40 years, the US population and economy is anticipated to grow much faster than Japan, mainly due to the US higher net migration.  However, Japan's Real GDP per capita is expected to grow faster than the US.

This next slide is an intriguing causal model.  It discloses that Americans drink a lot more soft drinks, watch a lot more TV, and have a far shorter school year than Japanese.  These three indicators may have causal implications on several health metrics: obesity rate, life expectancy, and health care cost.  They may also have implication in overall population IQ and prospective RGP p.c. forecast.

Below, I am just sharing a few references regarding the respective countries' IQ score. 

While the trends reviewed so far favor Japan, the next set of trends related to upper level education reflect a marked competitive advantage for the US. 

The US dominates the ranks of top universities. 

The US also produces a competitive number of Doctorate degrees in science and engineering. 

 

The US also publishes a competitive number of papers and articles in science and engineering. 

Will we likely keep temperature increase at or below + 1.5 degree Celsius by the end of the Century?

 The short answer is that it is most unlikely that we will be able to do so.  

As we speak our global temperature is already at about 1.1 degree Celsius (over the average from 1850 - 1900).  So, we have only 0.4 degree Celsius to play with. 

Over the past 40 years, our temperature has risen by 0.7 degrees.  If the past is representative of the future, this suggests that over the next 23 years our temperature may very well increase by 0.4 degree over current levels.  And, going forward we would cross the + 1.5 degree threshold.   

This back of the envelope estimate is very much in line with the most recent scenarios generated by the IPCC, as shown below.

It is also in line with a forecast generated by a Vector Autoregression (VAR) model I had introduced in a recent post, as shown below. 

Thus, as described using three completely different methods ranging from rudimentary to pretty complex, we are most likely to run into trouble during the 2040s when we well could cross that + 1.5 degree Celsius threshold. 

One can still advance the argument that going forward everything will change.  We are decarbonising our World economy, etc.  

Well, the U.S. International Energy Agency (IEA) most recent forecast is really not encouraging on this ground.  They foresee a continued rapid rise in CO2 emission that will contribute to ongoing temperature rise. 

 

 

 

 

Quoting the EIA: 

“If current policy and technology trends continue, global energy consumption and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions will increase through 2050 as a result of population and economic growth.

 

Oil and natural gas production will continue to grow, mainly to support increasing energy consumption in developing Asian economies.”

 

If you want more information on this topic, please view the link to my presentation on the subject. 

2100 Temperature Forecast

 

 

Are we collapsing (in Southern Marin county)?

Jared Diamond, historian and author of “Collapse”, states that civilizations big and small have collapsed in good part because of exhaustion of water resources combined with out-of-control population growth. 

We are following Diamond’s exact recipe for collapsing by doing the following: 

1)    The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) Board only opting for building a water pipeline, that they are already planning to dismantle before it is even built to save money when they anticipate we won’t need the pipeline anymore;  

2Many customers of MMWD not willing to cut back on landscape irrigation to preserve the aesthetic and value of their home; 

3)   Because of environmental regulations we are diverting the equivalent of nearly 50% of our entire water consumption from MMWD to save the salmon.  We can’t ruin our local fisheries; and

4)    Sacramento is mandating we build thousands of units for low-income, local working population, and market units to facilitate necessary housing to accommodate the Bay Area job growth.

 Notice that each of the above actions make perfect sense on a stand-alone basis and out of the current context.  In combination, they will contribute to chronic water crises.