MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413803586 · doi:10.3389/fspor.2025.1639431

Player archetypes within basketball: optimizing roster composition to create a championship team

2025· article· en· W4413803586 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luke S. J. Penner

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Sports and Active Living · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasketballChampionshipLeagueCoachingTeam compositionRanking (information retrieval)AthletesWeightingOperations researchComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringOperations managementAdvertisingManagementKnowledge managementGeographyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study assessed the feasibility of grouping university and professional basketball players across different leagues based on their playing styles to optimize championship team construction, moving beyond traditional positional constraints towards a positionless approach. A comprehensive dataset of 22,500 elite professional and university athletes from 110 leagues, sourced from EuroBasket, RealGM, and USportsHoops, was analyzed. Player performance was quantified using 13 standardized box score statistics converted to per 48 min. Utilizing the k-means algorithm, players were clustered 1nto 9 distinct player archetypes. Multiple linear regression models were then developed for each archetype, predicting "points per minute" to facilitate player ranking, further refined by a data-driven league quality weighting system. Optimal player cluster proportions were derived from analyses of 2018/19 NBA lineups and 2014-2018 1nternational medal-winning teams to create the most effective team line-ups. The model's utility was demonstrated by selecting a hypothetical Team Canada roster for the 2019 FIBA World Cup, which showed effectiveness 1n 1dentifying a robust team composition and predicting the rise of future high-potential players. Additionally, the model's effectiveness was evaluated by comparing 1ts results to the composition of the 2000 and 2024 Canadian National Olympic teams. The findings revealed 9 unique player clusters, demonstrating the model's potential as a 5aluable tool for guiding coaching decisions 1n drafting and signing future players to fit their roster composition effectively. The model proved to be a novel method for talent identification due to 1ts evaluation of players across leagues and 1ts usage of readily accessible data for coaches and scouts alike. Despite limitations related to data sources and subjective weighting, this research provides a sophisticated analytical tool for players, coaches, scouts, and general managers, offering a comprehensive league strength metric and a nuanced player ranking system to enhance roster development alongside the expertise of coaches 1n the evolving global basketball landscape.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Sports and Active LivingSame topicSports Analytics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207