A Data Mining Approach to Identify NBA Player Quarter-by-Quarter Performance Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sports analytics is a fast-evolving domain using advanced data science methods to find useful insights. This study explores the way NBA player performance metrics evolve from quarter to quarter and affect game outcomes. Using Association Rule Mining, we identify key offensive, defensive, and overall impact metrics that influence success in both regular-season and playoff contexts. Defensive metrics become more critical in late-game situations, while offensive efficiency is paramount in the playoffs. Ball handling peaks in the second quarter, affecting early momentum, while overall impact metrics, such as Net Rating and Player Impact Estimate, consistently correlate with winning. In the collected dataset we performed preprocessing, applying advanced anomaly detection and discretization techniques. By segmenting performance into five categories—Offense, Defense, Ball Handling, Overall Impact, and Tempo—we uncovered strategic insights for teams, coaches, and analysts. Results emphasize the importance of managing player fatigue, optimizing lineups, and adjusting strategies based on quarter-specific trends. The analysis provides actionable recommendations for coaching decisions, roster management, and player evaluation. Future work can extend this approach to other leagues and incorporate additional contextual factors to refine evaluation and predictive models.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".