• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Danny Manning Credibility Watch

Agree with dv7, you call a timeout to tell your players what they are doing wrong and what they were supposed to do. Coaches are just trying to remind the players to stick with what they have been taught.
 
DeacsFan27 since you don't believe in momentum in sports, do you believe in player self-confidence? Those two things would seem to go hand-in-hand and are very similar. Legitimately curious, not trying to start an argument.

Also, sometimes a timeout isn't taken to stop "momentum" so much as it is to change a gameplan/tell the players what they need to do differently to stop a run. A timeout, to me, wouldn't stop "momentum" as the players will probably come out of the timeout just as confident as they went into it. Timeouts should be used to change gameplan, not with the intent of stopping another teams momentum.

EDIT: timeouts should also be used for subs/calm players down in a place like Cameron/etc. I was just pointing out the one that in my opinion applied to momentum the most.
 
Last edited:
bmoneydeac said:
I'm pretty statistically inclined but think momentum can be explained in instances where a team is rattled and gets out of sync. If a team just isn't hitting shots and the deficit creeps up, that's not necessarily a momentum shift. I think fans are quick to label normal runs as momentum shifts when that's just part of the game.

Agree that a working definition of momentum would be helpful.

Also agree that fans overemphasize timeout usage because it's an easy criticism. Same goes for free throw shooting.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase the Supreme Court, "You may not be able to define momentum, but you know it when you see it."

And Clay didn't have a hot hand two nights ago.
 
CharlotteDeac1 said:
DeacsFan27 since you don't believe in momentum in sports, do you believe in player self-confidence? Those two things would seem to go hand-in-hand and are very similar. Legitimately curious, not trying to start an argument.
Click to expand...

There are times when everything your team does is right and the opposition does a lot of things wrong. There's no explanation. It's just real.
 
Momentum exists in sports. Look what Klay Thompson did on Monday night. A player and a team can have positive or negative momentum. Just not sure timeouts have much to do with changing the course of momentum other than the observation that not calling a timeout is not working. Remember the start of the BC at WF game last year? BC called three timeouts in the first half and WF still led 41-14 (yes, I know that BC sucks, but that was BC's worst half of the year against any opponent).
 
CharlotteDeac1 said:
DeacsFan27 since you don't believe in momentum in sports, do you believe in player self-confidence? Those two things would seem to go hand-in-hand and are very similar. Legitimately curious, not trying to start an argument.

Also, sometimes a timeout isn't taken to stop "momentum" so much as it is to change a gameplan/tell the players what they need to do differently to stop a run. A timeout, to me, wouldn't stop "momentum" as the players will probably come out of the timeout just as confident as they went into it. Timeouts should be used to change gameplan, not with the intent of stopping another teams momentum.

EDIT: timeouts should also be used for subs/calm players down in a place like Cameron/etc. I was just pointing out the one that in my opinion applied to momentum the most.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "player self-confidence"?

I can better answer that if I have a definition.
 
Pilchard said:
Momentum exists in sports. Look what Klay Thompson did on Monday night. A player and a team can have positive or negative momentum. Just not sure timeouts have much to do with changing the course of momentum other than the observation that not calling a timeout is not working. Remember the start of the BC at WF game last year? BC called three timeouts in the first half and WF still led 41-14 (yes, I know that BC sucks, but that was BC's worst half of the year against any opponent).
Click to expand...

How would you subscribe that to "momentum"? Once again, I think a definition of "momentum" would go a long way in this discussion. We may be talking about the same thing existing, but subscribing different words to it.

He shot 21/33 (64%), which is no doubt a good spurt of shooting, but not one that is completely outrageous from a statistical spectrum. I'm sure he's shot 64% on 33 shots before over several games, this just occurred over the course of one game. That doesn't mean he had the "hot hand". It means that we witnessed a spurt of above average shooting contained in one game where he made 21/33 shots.
 
PavlovsDog said:
I think flipping a coin is actually a good comparison because it describes basic probability, which is at the heart of statistical analysis. If I were to flip a coin 140 times, there would be "streaks" in which we landed on heads multiple times (3,4,5) in a row. For example, there is a approximately a 3% chance of flipping 5 heads in a row. Over 140 flips, it will likely happen. We are biased because of our emotional entanglement with sports. When we see "streaks" that are occurring well within the realm of chance, we erroneously attribute it to the emotional element. Thus, it gets back to the definition of "momentum". It seems we would define something as momentum if streaks occur that could not be likely attributed to chance alone. If it does not exceed what we would expect by chance, then it is not having an actual impact.

So, is there an emotional element related to confidence that exists in sports. I am sure there is evidence to suggest this based on self report. Does it impact the streaks that occur in games? Not in a significant way.
Click to expand...




That's preposterous. If a team scores 12, 15, 18 points in a row, it odes impact both teams. To say it doesn't shows a glaring lack of understanding of the game and of human nature. Everyone who has ever played sports has looked into the eyes of an opponent and known this to be true.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
What do you mean by "player self-confidence"?

I can better answer that if I have a definition.
Click to expand...

Confidence in general. Confidence in one's shot, ability to drive, etc. I'll use myself as an example: in high school I would go through a ~2 game period that my shot was just way off so i lost confidence in it so it extended even further. I wouldn't get out of my slump until I looked good enough in practice to gain confidence in my in-game shooting ability.
Or even going outside of basketball, a slump in baseball is probably the most mental thing in sports. Lack of confidence=lack of production in many cases in my opinion, and I use statistics for just about everything I can.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
How would you subscribe that to "momentum"? Once again, I think a definition of "momentum" would go a long way in this discussion. We may be talking about the same thing existing, but subscribing different words to it.

He shot 21/33 (64%), which is no doubt a good spurt of shooting, but not one that is completely outrageous from a statistical spectrum. I'm sure he's shot 64% on 33 shots before over several games, this just occurred over the course of one game. That doesn't mean he had the "hot hand". It means that we witnessed a spurt of above average shooting contained in one game where he made 21/33 shots.
Click to expand...

It's rare that momentum continues past the end of one game. The same thing is true about a hot hand. You know way too much about sports to say that neither or even one these doesn't exist.
 
I think we're just using different terminology.

Most people say "hot hand" when somebody makes a few in a row, or makes a high number out of shots taken. I would just call that statistical variance that is resulting in a "cluster" effect of made shots.

If somebody is a 40% shooter over 10,000 shots, and they have made 5 in a row, and I asked you what percentage you would put on that player making his next three-point shot what would you say?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I think we're just using different terminology.

Most people say "hot hand" when somebody makes a few in a row, or makes a high number out of shots taken. I would just call that statistical variance that is resulting in a "cluster" effect of made shots.

If somebody is a 40% shooter over 10,000 shots, and they have made 5 in a row, and I asked you what percentage you would put on that player making his next three-point shot what would you say?
Click to expand...

Serious question do you play basketball, or sports for that matter?
 
There was a good article from the WSJ that provided a study analyzing 70K shots. It found that a player can shoot slightly over his expected long-term percentage if the shot is from the same place on the floor.

They devised a formula that, for the first time, controls for variables such as a shot's location and a defender's position to better understand its difficulty. The hot-hand effect was masked in the past by the players themselves, the authors contend, since many attempted lower-percentage shots when they were "feeling it," as the announcer Marv Albert would say.

After analyzing shots in better detail—they surveyed more than 70,000 from the last NBA season and cross-referenced them against play-by-play summaries—the authors say a player can be more likely, not less likely, to make his next shot if he has made several in row. Their hot-hand estimate ranges from a 1.2 to a 2.4 percentage-point increase in likelihood.
Click to expand...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304071004579409071015745370
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I think we're just using different terminology.

Most people say "hot hand" when somebody makes a few in a row, or makes a high number out of shots taken. I would just call that statistical variance that is resulting in a "cluster" effect of made shots.

If somebody is a 40% shooter over 10,000 shots, and they have made 5 in a row, and I asked you what percentage you would put on that player making his next three-point shot what would you say?
Click to expand...

I would give a player who made 10 shots in a row a slightly higher likelihood to make the next one than a player who had just missed 10 shots purely based on confidence (I like the word confidence better than momentum). It would be like how a coach could normally have a player who they prefer to take the end-of-game shot but if a player is shooting 6/6 on threes that game they would give them the opportunity instead. Like our game against Georgia Tech at their place in maybe 2005(?) when Taron Downey hit a game-tying 3 but Skip called a timeout before it went in so it didn't count. We came out of the timeout and he gave the ball right back to Downey because he wanted it and was confident he was going to make it and he did (and-1, missed the FT to win, snapping some crazy FT streak we had going). I don't recall him being the go-to end-of-game guy.

I understand it's a difficult topic because there really isn't any way to quantify it, it just seems like it would go under a "human error" section that would skew statistics slightly.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Huh, would not of guessed that. I think comparing the statistical outcome of shooting a basketball, to the outcomes of rolling dice or flipping a coin is very dense. To each their own though.

This board has been up and down this road, lol.
 
Here's another interesting question: If a guy is shooting 40% over 10K shots, and has missed 10 in a row, and a guy is shooting 30% over 10K shots, and has made 10 in a row, who would you give the ball to at the end of the game?
 
WFcatamount22 said:
Huh, would not of guessed that. I think comparing the statistical outcome of shooting a basketball, to the outcomes of rolling dice or flipping a coin is very dense. To each their own though.

This board has been up and down this road, lol.
Click to expand...

Played golf and ran track in high school but that's about it.

Don't get me wrong. When I am on the golf course having a good day, I'm not out there thinking "wow, what are the odds of this!!!", I'm thinking "damn I'm playing well today". Nor am I constantly evaluating the odds on what type of shot to play. I play by what I think feels right, and live with the result. If I were trying to make a living doing that (which I clearly don't have the skill to do), I would probably figure out the percentages on hitting a flop vs. a knockdown based on my skill level in certain situations to figure out which shot is the best to attempt at any given time.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I think we're just using different terminology.

Most people say "hot hand" when somebody makes a few in a row, or makes a high number out of shots taken. I would just call that statistical variance that is resulting in a "cluster" effect of made shots.

If somebody is a 40% shooter over 10,000 shots, and they have made 5 in a row, and I asked you what percentage you would put on that player making his next three-point shot what would you say?
Click to expand...

If a guy has hit four threes in a row and is a 40% shooter, I want him taking the next shot. It's much more likely that he'll hit it than 40% shooter who has missed his last four. I doubt you could find a coach on any level who would disagree with me.
 
RJKarl said:
If a guy has hit four threes in a row and is a 40% shooter, I want him taking the next shot. It's much more likely that he'll hit it than 40% shooter who has missed his last four. I doubt you could find a coach on any level who would disagree with me.
Click to expand...

Fair enough response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top