球是躺着的吗?验证拉希德·华莱士的假设

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
B. Meehan, Javier E. Portillo, Corey Jenkins
{"title":"球是躺着的吗?验证拉希德·华莱士的假设","authors":"B. Meehan, Javier E. Portillo, Corey Jenkins","doi":"10.1515/jqas-2020-0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Former NBA all-star forward Rasheed Wallace popularized the catchphrase “Ball Don’t Lie.” Rasheed would often shout this after an opponent missed a free throw. It was used by Rasheed to illustrate the mental impact on a free throw shooter from knowing the foul was questionable and its impact on likelihood of converting the ensuing free throw. The tendency to miss free throws associated with questionable foul calls—or the propensity for the ball to miss—would be followed by Rasheed’s “Ball Don’t Lie!” exclamation. This paper aims to test whether the ball was less likely to go through the hoop during free throws following questionable foul calls. We use a proxy to identify the questionableness of a foul call, one that Rasheed Wallace was very familiar with—whenever the original shooting foul was immediately followed by a technical foul. This proxy is meant to capture player and coach reactions to a shooting foul call. If the call was bad, or questionable, we expect more outrage from the team the foul was called on, which tends to draw technical fouls. Our findings do not support Rasheed’s prediction; the propensity to make a shooting foul free throw does not appear to change after a technical. In fact, using a subset of our data period under which the NBA changed technical foul rules to target complaining about foul calls, we find a small increase in free throw percentage after a technical foul call.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the ball lie? Testing the Rasheed Wallace hypothesis\",\"authors\":\"B. Meehan, Javier E. Portillo, Corey Jenkins\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jqas-2020-0020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Former NBA all-star forward Rasheed Wallace popularized the catchphrase “Ball Don’t Lie.” Rasheed would often shout this after an opponent missed a free throw. It was used by Rasheed to illustrate the mental impact on a free throw shooter from knowing the foul was questionable and its impact on likelihood of converting the ensuing free throw. The tendency to miss free throws associated with questionable foul calls—or the propensity for the ball to miss—would be followed by Rasheed’s “Ball Don’t Lie!” exclamation. This paper aims to test whether the ball was less likely to go through the hoop during free throws following questionable foul calls. We use a proxy to identify the questionableness of a foul call, one that Rasheed Wallace was very familiar with—whenever the original shooting foul was immediately followed by a technical foul. This proxy is meant to capture player and coach reactions to a shooting foul call. If the call was bad, or questionable, we expect more outrage from the team the foul was called on, which tends to draw technical fouls. Our findings do not support Rasheed’s prediction; the propensity to make a shooting foul free throw does not appear to change after a technical. In fact, using a subset of our data period under which the NBA changed technical foul rules to target complaining about foul calls, we find a small increase in free throw percentage after a technical foul call.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jqas-2020-0020\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jqas-2020-0020","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前NBA全明星前锋拉希德·华莱士(Rasheed Wallace)普及了“球不要撒谎”这句名言。拉希德经常在对手罚球不中后喊出这句话。拉希德用这句话来说明,当一个罚球手知道犯规有问题时,他的心理会受到怎样的影响,以及这种影响对随后罚球得分的可能性会产生怎样的影响。与可疑的犯规判罚有关的罚球不中的倾向——或者是球不中的倾向——会被拉希德的“球不要撒谎!””的感叹。本文旨在测试在可疑的犯规判罚后,罚球是否更不可能通过篮筐。我们用一个代理来识别犯规的可疑性,拉希德·华莱士对此非常熟悉——每当最初的投篮犯规紧随其后的是一次技术犯规。这个代理是为了捕捉球员和教练对投篮犯规的反应。如果这个判罚是错误的,或者是有问题的,我们预计被判罚的球队会更加愤怒,这往往会导致技术犯规。我们的发现不支持拉希德的预测;在一次技术犯规后,投篮犯规的倾向似乎并没有改变。事实上,在我们的数据期内,NBA改变了技术犯规规则,以针对对犯规的抱怨,我们发现技术犯规后罚球百分比略有增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does the ball lie? Testing the Rasheed Wallace hypothesis
Abstract Former NBA all-star forward Rasheed Wallace popularized the catchphrase “Ball Don’t Lie.” Rasheed would often shout this after an opponent missed a free throw. It was used by Rasheed to illustrate the mental impact on a free throw shooter from knowing the foul was questionable and its impact on likelihood of converting the ensuing free throw. The tendency to miss free throws associated with questionable foul calls—or the propensity for the ball to miss—would be followed by Rasheed’s “Ball Don’t Lie!” exclamation. This paper aims to test whether the ball was less likely to go through the hoop during free throws following questionable foul calls. We use a proxy to identify the questionableness of a foul call, one that Rasheed Wallace was very familiar with—whenever the original shooting foul was immediately followed by a technical foul. This proxy is meant to capture player and coach reactions to a shooting foul call. If the call was bad, or questionable, we expect more outrage from the team the foul was called on, which tends to draw technical fouls. Our findings do not support Rasheed’s prediction; the propensity to make a shooting foul free throw does not appear to change after a technical. In fact, using a subset of our data period under which the NBA changed technical foul rules to target complaining about foul calls, we find a small increase in free throw percentage after a technical foul call.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信