Fictional demonstration
Northlight BC and every opponent, result, statistic and scenario are invented to demonstrate the report structure and analysis. This is not a real team or NBBF data.
A fictional case study showing how NHA turns evidence into a scouting decision: contain the first advantage, recover to shooters and finish the possession. Every team, statistic and scenario below is invented.
Download the staff report (PDF · English)
01 · PERSONNEL & WORKLOAD
Full roster · production and deployment
All ten fictional players. Counting statistics and minutes are per appearance across three games; shooting cells are pooled makes/attempts. The roster reconciles to 253 points, 202 field-goal attempts, 57 assists, 41 turnovers and 600 player-minutes. This is the observed sample roster, not a claim about registration or availability.
| # | Player | GP | MIN | PTS | ORB | DRB | AST | TO | STL | BLK | PF | 2P | 3P | FT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Elias Nord | 3 | 34.0 | 12.7 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 6.3 | 3.7 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 3.3 | 9/13 | 5/18 | 5/8 |
| 7 | Jonas Berg | 3 | 31.0 | 11.7 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 1.7 | 7/15 | 5/15 | 6/7 |
| 11 | Lukas Strand | 3 | 28.0 | 13.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 8/11 | 7/17 | 2/3 |
| 14 | Mikael Holm | 3 | 26.7 | 11.3 | 1.0 | 4.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 2.0 | 8/21 | 4/11 | 6/7 |
| 21 | Oskar Vik | 3 | 25.3 | 11.0 | 4.3 | 7.7 | 0.7 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 2.3 | 13/23 | 0/1 | 7/9 |
| 3 | Noah Dahl | 3 | 18.3 | 10.3 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 5.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 1.7 | 8/11 | 3/10 | 6/7 |
| 9 | Emil Solberg | 3 | 14.3 | 4.3 | 0.3 | 3.7 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0/1 | 4/11 | 1/2 |
| 15 | Adam Lund | 3 | 10.7 | 5.7 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 4/10 | 2/3 | 3/4 |
| 23 | Leo Hansen | 3 | 8.0 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 2/8 | 0/1 | 3/5 |
| 30 | Oliver Moen | 3 | 3.7 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 1.0 | 1/1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
Minutes are an observed usage profile. They do not establish a starting five, position, fitness or the next game’s rotation. Player roles below are fictional scenario labels.
Advanced roster · efficiency, load and creation
| # | Player | TS% | eFG% | 2P% | 3P% | FT% | 3PA/FGA | FTr | USG%* | AST/TO | AST%* | ORB%* | PTS/40 | AST/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Elias Nord | 55.0% | 53.2% | 69.2% | 27.8% | 62.5% | 58.1% | 25.8% | 20.1% | 1.73 | 30.0% | 1.1% | 14.9 | 7.5 |
| 7 | Jonas Berg | 52.9% | 48.3% | 46.7% | 33.3% | 85.7% | 50.0% | 23.3% | 19.4% | 1.14 | 13.7% | 0.0% | 15.1 | 3.4 |
| 11 | Lukas Strand | 66.5% | 66.1% | 72.7% | 41.2% | 66.7% | 60.7% | 10.7% | 17.3% | 0.67 | 4.1% | 3.9% | 18.6 | 1.0 |
| 14 | Mikael Holm | 48.5% | 43.8% | 38.1% | 36.4% | 85.7% | 34.4% | 21.9% | 22.6% | 1.00 | 10.3% | 4.1% | 17.0 | 2.5 |
| 21 | Oskar Vik | 59.0% | 54.2% | 56.5% | 0.0% | 77.8% | 4.2% | 37.5% | 19.5% | 0.40 | 4.5% | 18.8% | 17.4 | 1.1 |
| 3 | Noah Dahl | 64.4% | 59.5% | 72.7% | 30.0% | 85.7% | 47.6% | 33.3% | 21.4% | 7.50 | 48.8% | 0.0% | 22.5 | 10.9 |
| 9 | Emil Solberg | 50.5% | 50.0% | 0.0% | 36.4% | 50.0% | 91.7% | 16.7% | 17.7% | 1.00 | 14.0% | 2.6% | 12.1 | 3.7 |
| 15 | Adam Lund | 57.6% | 53.8% | 40.0% | 66.7% | 75.0% | 23.1% | 30.8% | 23.6% | 0.50 | 5.5% | 17.2% | 21.3 | 1.3 |
| 23 | Leo Hansen | 31.3% | 22.2% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 60.0% | 11.1% | 55.6% | 22.9% | 1.00 | 6.2% | 13.8% | 11.7 | 1.7 |
| 30 | Oliver Moen | 123.0% | 125.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 50.0% | 50.0% | 14.1% | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 21.8 | 0.0 |
* Minute-adjusted box-score estimates, not tracked possessions. USG% estimates possession-ending activity while playing. AST% estimates teammate field goals assisted; ORB% estimates offensive rebounding opportunities while playing. PTS/40 and AST/40 are time-normalised production, not forecasts. No player ORtg, defensive rating or on/off causal claims are inferred from these totals.
Rotation audit · usual minutes and recent change
| # | Player / scenario role | G1 MIN | G2 MIN | G3 MIN | Mean | Range | Share of 200 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Elias Nord | 33 | 34 | 35 | 34.0 | 33–35 | 17.0% |
| 7 | Jonas Berg | 30 | 31 | 32 | 31.0 | 30–32 | 15.5% |
| 11 | Lukas Strand | 27 | 29 | 28 | 28.0 | 27–29 | 14.0% |
| 14 | Mikael Holm | 26 | 27 | 27 | 26.7 | 26–27 | 13.3% |
| 21 | Oskar Vik | 25 | 25 | 26 | 25.3 | 25–26 | 12.7% |
| 3 | Noah Dahl | 19 | 18 | 18 | 18.3 | 18–19 | 9.2% |
| 9 | Emil Solberg | 15 | 14 | 14 | 14.3 | 14–15 | 7.2% |
| 15 | Adam Lund | 12 | 10 | 10 | 10.7 | 10–12 | 5.3% |
| 23 | Leo Hansen | 9 | 8 | 7 | 8.0 | 7–9 | 4.0% |
| 30 | Oliver Moen | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3.7 | 3–4 | 1.8% |
The first five names consume 72.5% of available player-minutes (435/600). Nord and Berg rise from 33/30 to 35/32 minutes, while the final three rotation places fall from 25 to 20 combined minutes. In this fictional scenario, prepare a first-unit plan and a separate bench-pressure plan; three games cannot establish the coach’s intended hierarchy.
A full delivery adds substitution timelines, stint lengths, first entry/exit, closing groups, pairs and five-player units only after starters, substitutions and player-minute reconciliation pass validation. This example has no synthetic substitution log, so those results are explicitly unavailable.
Player dossiers · what changes the preparation
#11 Lukas Strand
Scenario role: Wing
28.0 MIN · 13.0 PTS · 66.5% TS · 7/17 3P · 2 AST / 3 TO
Perimeter volume is the first scouting question: rehearse connected closeouts, then verify catch-and-shoot versus off-dribble attempts on film.
Film check: preferred hand, initiation, contact finishes, pressure response and defensive assignments remain unverified.
#4 Elias Nord
Scenario role: Lead guard
34.0 MIN · 12.7 PTS · 55.0% TS · 5/18 3P · 19 AST / 11 TO
Perimeter volume is the first scouting question: rehearse connected closeouts, then verify catch-and-shoot versus off-dribble attempts on film.
Film check: preferred hand, initiation, contact finishes, pressure response and defensive assignments remain unverified.
#7 Jonas Berg
Scenario role: Scoring guard
31.0 MIN · 11.7 PTS · 52.9% TS · 5/15 3P · 8 AST / 7 TO
Two-point volume is the first scouting question: identify where the attempts originate before selecting a help or screen-coverage rule.
Film check: preferred hand, initiation, contact finishes, pressure response and defensive assignments remain unverified.
#14 Mikael Holm
Scenario role: Forward
26.7 MIN · 11.3 PTS · 48.5% TS · 4/11 3P · 5 AST / 5 TO
Two-point volume is the first scouting question: identify where the attempts originate before selecting a help or screen-coverage rule.
Film check: preferred hand, initiation, contact finishes, pressure response and defensive assignments remain unverified.
Coaching delivery · evidence, intervention and review
| Priority | Evidence | Intervention | Review measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Decision security | 41 TO / 3 GP | Second outlet; advantage drill under a time constraint | Code avoidable live-ball errors by initiator and context |
| Rebound coverage | 29 ORB / 109 opportunities | Contact assignment after help; named safety player | Eligible misses, uncontested ORB and transition concessions |
| Perimeter balance | 88 / 202 FGA from 3 | Closeout-to-contain and second-side recovery | Open catches allowed, not just opponent makes |
Deliverables should include a one-page staff brief, full player tables, opponent-adjusted context when the sample supports it, game-by-game trends, a film verification queue and a practical training plan. Additional pages must answer a decision; more numbers alone do not improve the report.
Definitions, scope and research
Synthetic sample: three 40-minute games, no overtime. The ten-player roster is generated to reconcile with the demonstration team totals. Min% = player minutes / all team player-minutes. TS% = PTS / [2 × (FGA + 0.44 × FTA)]. eFG% = (FGM + 0.5 × 3PM) / FGA. USG%* = 100 × (FGA + 0.44 × FTA + TO) × 120 / [MIN × team (FGA + 0.44 × FTA + TO)]. AST%* = 100 × AST / [(MIN/120 × team FGM) − player FGM]. ORB%* = 100 × ORB × 120 / [MIN × (team ORB + opponent DRB)]. Zero denominators show a dash. No injuries, contracts, tracking data or film tags are invented.
FIBA Statisticians’ Manual 2024 · Hudl · Lineup data and coaching decisions
Assessment and confidence
Northlight scored 253 and conceded 245 points. The +8 margin and 2–1 record describe this small synthetic sample; they do not establish dominance. The baseline plan should be disciplined containment rather than a disruptive coverage change based only on wins.
Three-point attempts represent 43.6% of all field-goal attempts (88/202). Two-point efficiency is 52.6% (60/114). Both scoring channels matter: leaving the perimeter unattended is costly, but chasing shooters without balance can create a better two-point opportunity.
How they can hurt you
The outside threat is volume, not proof of elite shooting. One extra make changes the pooled three-point percentage by 1.1 points. Start with controlled closeouts; do not decide to abandon a shooter from three games without checking shot quality and their own sample.
They collected 29 offensive rebounds against 80 opponent defensive rebounds: 26.6% of recorded opportunities. The Summit game supplied 12 of those 29. Second chances deserve assignments, but the pooled rate should not be called a stable team identity.
57 assists on 91 field goals indicate recorded shared scoring. They do not identify a pick-and-roll system, off-ball screens or transition frequency. An extra-pass threat is a preparation hypothesis that needs film confirmation.
Your offence against Northlight
Opponents committed 45 turnovers versus Northlight’s 41: a modest four-turnover difference across the sample. This is insufficient evidence for an aggressive trapping identity. Prepare a second outlet and a reversal pass, while keeping enough spacing to attack the basket.
Test the first defender with a second action after the initial advantage is contained. Log whether the next help arrives early, late or from the corner. Attack the observed rotation on the next possession; do not choose a weak defender or preferred driving direction from box-score totals.
Development priorities
The 16 turnovers in the loss make decision quality a useful review topic, not proof that turnovers caused the result. Code the avoidable errors: late outlet, unsupported drive, pressured pass or offensive foul. Train the earliest correct decision instead of asking only for fewer turnovers.
Build a repeatable shot-to-rebound transition: identify the shooter, assign interior contact and nominate the safety player. Compare opportunities across opponents before increasing offensive rebounding commitment, because extra crashers may weaken transition defence.
What must be verified before the game
No real video or player tracking supports this demonstration. A real assignment would check shot locations, who initiates each advantage, the help source, lineups and pressure decisions. Conclusions about screen coverage, handedness or defensive matchup weaknesses remain open until that evidence exists.
Game plan · action, risk and check
1 · Contain, then recover
Keep the first defender connected and use short, coordinated help. Recover with a balanced closeout rather than chasing a block.
Tradeoff: Too little help can concede a clean finish; too much can free the next shooter.
Check & adjust: Review the first five advantage possessions. If help repeatedly releases clean corner catches, adjust its source and timing; do not react only to makes.
2 · Finish the possession
Assign rebounding contact after every help rotation or switch. Secure possession before releasing an outlet.
Tradeoff: Overcommitting to contact can lose the ball or create a foul; releasing early leaves a second chance.
Check & adjust: Count offensive rebounds per eligible missed shot and identify whether failures are assignment or execution. Adjust responsibility when two uncontested second chances show the same cause.
3 · Protect the next decision
Use a visible second outlet and a reversal option; continue into a second action when the first one stalls.
Tradeoff: A reversal without an advantage may consume the clock and lead to a late contested shot.
Check & adjust: Track avoidable live-ball turnovers and the quality of the shot after the second action. Change spacing or initiation if the same pressured pass recurs.
Synthetic data & method
| Fictional opponent | Score | 2P | 3P | FT | ORB / opp. DRB | AST | TO / opp. TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harbour Falcons | 84–77 | 20/38 | 10/29 | 14/18 | 9 / 27 | 18 | 13 / 15 |
| Summit Bears | 91–86 | 23/39 | 11/30 | 12/17 | 12 / 25 | 22 | 12 / 14 |
| Aurora Wolves | 78–82 | 17/37 | 10/29 | 14/18 | 8 / 28 | 17 | 16 / 16 |
All figures are synthetic; no real game links or film sources are used. The sample is not opponent-adjusted.
eFG% = (FGM + 0.5 × 3PM) / FGA. ORB% = ORB / (ORB + opponent DRB).