Skip to main content

Better parenting through science

Owen's latest obsession is basketball. Scratch that, Owen's obsession has been basketball, for a while now. He practices his shot twice a day, once at school and again after school on the hoop we bought him for his birthday last year.

His practice routine is to shoot until he scores some predetermined number of points, usually 50 to 100. Like most young basketball players, he has been spending a lot of time shooting long-distance three-pointers. However, after missing several in a row he gets very frustrated, which starts a negative feedback loop that causes him to miss more shots (lack of concentration), which causes him to get more upset, etc.

Sometimes he's able to remind himself of what Kobe says: "I'll make the next one." But unfortunately, the more his shot improves, the more he's unsatisfied with anything less than perfection. I had been at a loss lately because, while I'd like to tell him that the likelihood of making a shot is just that, a mere probability, not a certainty. But this point is subtle enough to be missed by 90% of basketball players, based on my experience in pick-up games (and made-up percentages). I always shake my head when I play with people who yell at their teammates after they miss two shots in a row. "Com'mon, man!" Come on? As in, come on small-number binomial statistics?!

Anyway, this weekend when Owen was crying after missing too many shots in a row, I said "Owen, do you think we could---hmmmm, I don't know. Maybe you can't handle it..."

"Wait, what? Can't handle what?" he asked.

"Oh, nothing. I just had a cool idea about an experiment we could do. But I'm not sure you can do it if you're crying."

"What's an experiment?"

"It's something you can do to figure out how the world works."

"Oh...I want one."

"Okay, get a pen, paper and the measuring tape."

We began by marking off regular, 1-foot intervals on the "court."

Starting at 3 feet from the back of the rim...


Out to 16 feet, by the air conditioner.


I then had Owen take 10 shots at each position, keeping track of the number of made shots out of 10. Owen really liked the process of recording the distance and number of shots made after each round. However, note the "instrument failure" at 5 feet, when he nearly lost it after missing the first 3 shots. I reset the instrument ("Take a deep breath. Remember what Kobe says.") and he made 7 of 10.

Half way through, he was beginning to predict how many he'd make at the next step back. "I bet I'm going to make 3 shots at 13 feet." Then, at 16 feet, "Dad, it will be okay if I only make 0 shots or 1 shot from here!"

After we were done, I told him: "These numbers right here, these are (whispering) data." He asked, "Whoa...what are data?" I replied, "They're pieces of information that tell us about how the world works. We can plot them, model them and start understanding."
Owen typed the numbers into a text file, and I read them into IDL to make the plot above. I asked him a bunch of questions and we had a great discussion of topics including:
  • What kind of shots are the easiest? "3 feet or 4 feet."
  • Is it okay to miss longer shots? "Yeah, they're harder."
  • "Dad, this mark means 3, and this mark means 5, and this is 7!"
  • How many shots do you think you'll make at 10 feet? "Um...five!" We then checked the log sheet and high-fived.
Next weekend we'll go over how to fit a linear function of distance and compare it to an alternative model (logistic function) using Bayesian parameter estimation and evidence ratios.

Or maybe we'll just shoot around.

Comments

kelle said…
JohnJohn, I think you're gonna have to write a book. This is just *too* amazing.
HAZEL + IVY said…
Wowzers. That is high level thinking! You should celebrate tonight with a Justin Beaver music party!
Anonymous said…
Awesome! What a great breakthrough in his thinking.

Love how you whispered "data." I do that, too, when I'm getting the kids intrigued with something. Soooo much fun to expand their minds!
Duane said…
This is amazing! I think the canonical numbers for scoring are 50% for 2pts and 33% for 3pts - that's to say that the best average around 1pt per shot. From the look of that curve, he may be close to those numbers already! Regardless, it's a marvelous way to give perspective on performance. I will be sure to remember this experiment for my kids. Thanks!

Popular posts from this blog

A view from your shut down

The Daily Dish has been posting reader emails reporting on their " view from the shutdown ." If you think this doesn't affect you, or if you know all too well how bad this is, take a look at the growing collection of poignant stories. No one is in this alone except for the nutjobs in the House. I decided to email Andrew with my own view. I plan to send a similar letter to my congressperson. Dear Andrew, I am a professor of astronomy at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). The CfA houses one of the largest, if not the largest collection of PhD astronomers in the United States, with over 300 professional astronomers and roughly 100 doctoral and predoctoral students on a small campus a few blocks west of Harvard Yard. Under the umbrella of the CfA are about 20 Harvard astronomy professors, and 50 tenure-track Smithsonian researchers. A large fraction of the latter are civil servants currently on furlough and unable to come to work. In total, 147 FTEs

back-talk begins

me: "owen, come here. it's time to get a new diaper" him, sprinting down the hall with no pants on: "forget about it!" he's quoting benny the rabbit, a short-lived sesame street character who happens to be in his favorite "count with me" video. i'm turning my head, trying not to let him see me laugh, because his use and tone with the phrase are so spot-on.

The Long Con

Hiding in Plain Sight ESPN has a series of sports documentaries called 30 For 30. One of my favorites is called Broke  which is about how professional athletes often make tens of millions of dollars in their careers yet retire with nothing. One of the major "leaks" turns out to be con artists, who lure athletes into elaborate real estate schemes or business ventures. This naturally raises the question: In a tightly-knit social structure that is a sports team, how can con artists operate so effectively and extensively? The answer is quite simple: very few people taken in by con artists ever tell anyone what happened. Thus, con artists can operate out in the open with little fear of consequences because they are shielded by the collective silence of their victims. I can empathize with this. I've lost money in two different con schemes. One was when I was in college, and I received a phone call that I had won an all-expenses-paid trip to the Bahamas. All I needed to d