Adding Value - New Meanings for 2025 Basketball?

"...the mind is your most formidable weapon." - Jack Carr in "Red Sky Mourning"

“You can always edit a bad page. You can’t edit a blank page.” - Jody Picoult

Facts are commodities. Search engines and publicly available artificial intelligence share incomprehensible amounts of truths. Can we extract something worthy of stealing and implementing? Use this post as a "thought experiment," asking "what can we do better or differently?" 

For example, consider this prompt:

Prompt: What actions in NBA basketball produce the highest points per possession? That could include anything from transition, to pick-and-roll, isolation, combination actions such as Pistol or Zoom, anything?

ChatGPT hallucination: 

Which NBA actions produce the highest points per possession?

Exact numbers move year to year and Synergy’s detailed PPP tables are behind a paywall, but across seasons the hierarchy is reasonably consistent: Canis Hoopus+3NBA+3NBA+3

1. Transition offense

   • Highest PPP on average.

   • Anytime you can run off a steal, long rebound, or quick outlet, you’re usually in the 1.2–1.4+ PPP range as a team.

   • Wide-open threes, dunks, and layups with a scrambled defense.

2. Pick-and-roll with the ball-handler creating (PnR BH)

   • When you have an elite creator (Doncic, Curry, SGA types), well-spaced PnR is one of the most efficient half-court actions.

   • Punishes drop, switch, and blitz differently (pull-ups, pocket passes, skips).

3. Pick-and-roll with the roll man (PnR Roll Man)

   • Short rolls and rim dives—especially with shooters spaced—are very high PPP (lob dunks, layups, fouls).

   • Articles on teams like the Bucks highlight how roll-man PPP can explode when defenses mis-tag or over-blitz. Brew Hoop

4. Off-ball screening actions (Zoom, Spain PnR, pistol combos, etc.)

   • These “combo” actions—dribble handoff into PnR, Zoom (pin-down into DHO), Spain (backscreen on the roller)—are essentially ways to supercharge PnR and DHO spacing.

   • They often track near the top of half-court PPP because they force multiple defensive decisions in one possession.

5. Spot-up and catch-and-shoot threes

   • Not an “action” by itself, but the destination of good offense.

   • Drive-and-kick, paint touches, and ball reversals that generate clean C&S threes are some of the most efficient half-court outcomes.

6. Isolation

   • As a primary diet, iso is generally less efficient than PnR and transition.

   • But elite iso players (your Randle-in-a-hot-season archetype) can post excellent PPP, especially in late-clock and end-game situations. Canis Hoopus

If you’re thinking programmatically:

• Build your offense around creating transition and early advantage (pace, stops, outlets).

• In the half court, live in PnR / DHO / Zoom-type actions that create paint touches and closeouts.

• Use isolation as a scalpel, not a sledgehammer—for your very best creators and in late-clock situations.

Ask the question differently and AI generates different information.

What does transfer?

Across NBA, EuroLeague, and high-level FIBA data, you keep seeing the same hierarchy:

• Most efficient: cuts, putbacks, transition advantages, roll-man finishes. ResearchGate+1

• Middle: good pick-and-roll with passing, open spot-up threes.

• Least efficient overall: post-ups and isolations, especially for average players.

The EuroLeague end-of-game study (1.58 PPP on cuts, 1.33 on putbacks, 0.78–0.98 on post/ISO/spot-up) shows the same ranking we see in NBA Synergy breakdowns and other analyses. ResearchGate+2Basketball Poetry+2

Followup prompt: How applicable is data from the NBA to college or high school basketball? 

Followup hallucination:

Short answer: the patterns are very transferable; the exact numbers are not.

What does transfer?

Across NBA, EuroLeague, and high-level FIBA data, you keep seeing the same hierarchy:

• Most efficient: cuts, putbacks, transition advantages, roll-man finishes. ResearchGate+1

• Middle: good pick-and-roll with passing, open spot-up threes.

• Least efficient overall: post-ups and isolations, especially for average players.

The EuroLeague end-of-game study (1.58 PPP on cuts, 1.33 on putbacks, 0.78–0.98 on post/ISO/spot-up) shows the same ranking we see in NBA Synergy breakdowns and other analyses. ResearchGate+2Basketball Poetry+2

That ordering is extremely useful for college and high school coaching:

• You want more cutting, screening, advantage creation, offensive rebounding.

• You want fewer low-yield, stagnant isos and forced post-ups unless you have a real mismatch.

What doesn’t transfer cleanly?

1. Absolute efficiency numbers.

   • HS players miss more layups, throw more bad passes, and aren’t as good from three. So your PPP will be lower everywhere—but the relative ranking stays similar.

2. Spacing and 3-point volume.

   • NBA: deeper line, elite spacing, more 5-out, more shooting skill.

   • HS: lane can be crowded, fewer consistent shooters, so some actions (e.g., certain spread ball-screen looks) won’t generate the same clean reads.

3. Physicality and rules differences.

   • FIBA vs NCAA vs NFHS differences (defensive 3 seconds, charge/block interpretations, goaltending, hand-checking) all tweak efficiency.

4. Talent distribution.

   • NBA data is about what works when all 10 people on the floor are very good.

   • In HS/college, one great player can distort the math—if your star gets 1.05 PPP in iso and your other options are 0.7, you might iso more than an NBA team would.

How I’d use it as a coach

• Use NBA/FIBA data to prioritize concepts:

  • Build an offense around advantage → spacing → cut/drive/roll → extra pass → crash.

• Track your own PPP by play type in simple form (even if it’s just “points per 100 possessions” on: transition, P&R, post, iso, ATO sets).

• Compare your internal rankings, not your raw numbers, to what the big boys find.

In other words: borrow the hierarchy, not the decimals. The shape of the efficiency curve travels; the exact values are league-specific.

Adding value to "our situation" will vary a lot:

- What type of players do we have? Fast, physical, skilled, smart or something far less? 

Analogy: "Don't bring a gun to a gunfight if our opponents have a tank."

- What can we teach and they learn? If we have a group limited by fundamental skills, do we focus on upgrading skills or believe "fool's gold" that strategy will overcome our limitations? 

Analogy: If we're not the hare, can we upgrade the tortoise? 

- What's the competition level? If we have the smallest enrollment and compete with other popular sports in our community, can we create a "paradigm shift" for our program? 

Analogy: If we're hopelessly "out-resourced," how can we compete?

Asymmetrical warfare (American Revolution, Vietnam War, cyberwarfare - see below for "Unrestricted Warfare" review:

Unrestricted Warfare, authored by two Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (1999), redefines modern conflict. The authors propose that warfare has evolved beyond traditional battlefields to encompass every domain of national life - economic, political, technological, media, legal, environmental, and psychological spheres. The authors inform that in globalized, interdependent world, "everything is a weapon, and everywhere is the battlefield".

Our task varies with our situation - to leverage advantages to overwhelm inferior opponents or to "level the playing field" with tools available to us. 

Lagniappe. Stop and pivot. 

James Clear: The ability to bounce back quickly is a key skill in life. pic.twitter.com/0RkGlxv9ym

— Reads with Ravi (@readswithravi) December 11, 2025