A Bayesian two-stage framework for lineup-independent assessment of individual rebounding ability in the NBA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In basketball, traditional methods of assessing individual rebounding ability are problematic because they depend on all players present on the court rather than just on the player of interest. Although there exist modeling approaches to correct for this dependence, they are generally unsuitable for events with binary outcomes. In this paper, a Bayesian two-stage model is proposed to predict both individual and team rebound allocation. This approach makes it possible to identify players who help their team win the fight for rebounds, regardless of their individual rebounding totals. Although similar in flavor to the popular Adjusted Plus-Minus (APM) framework, the proposed strategy is different in that it does not assume that individual contributions are linearly additive on the response scale. Furthermore, the regularization approach is improved through rebounding-specific heuristics. A simulation study is performed to show the effectiveness of the proposed model, and the parameters are estimated using data from the 2020-21 NBA season. Predictions are then made for rebounding in the 2021-22 season. This study confirms that relying exclusively on individual rebounding rates could lead to the mis-evaluation of players' rebounding abilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".