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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
What do you mean by "player self-confidence"?
I can better answer that if I have a definition.
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.
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?
Serious question do you play basketball, or sports for that matter?
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.
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?
Nope.
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.
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?
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.