At its core, this is a question about the prisoner's dilemma (see source), but at a high level, the prisoner's dilemma is an illustrative example of a decision in which the outcome is sub-optimal (see screenshot for payoff matrix) if the parties involved act in a self-interested manner (i.e., "monopolize the offense"). The optimal solution is for both Barbara and Juanita to cooperate (total payoff of 24 points). If we work under the assumption that the overarching goal (to which the payoff of Barbara and Juanita's respective decisions contribute) is to win the game, then the expectation would be that they would always cooperate and thus contribute the greatest collective points total to the team.
However, there may be competing interests at play. If either Barbara or Juanita (or both) have aspirations to play college / professional basketball, and we employ the assumption that the college / professional teams are most interested in scoring prowess, it becomes less clear what the overarching goal is (i.e., winning games versus being the leading scorer). An important consideration when performing decision analysis is to ensure that it is clear what the end goal is, because, as evidenced in this example, there may be competing interests and multiple interpretations of the "optimal" solution, irrespective of the output of the payoff matrix.