• 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

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...
The way I look at it, momentum can occur when one team is clearly superior to another so they have control of the game if they want to. Or if the two teams are more evenly matched, one team can have momentum when they are playing well and the other team is not. Those are kind of two different situations though, yes? It's also more about all the players doing well too...ie that one player starts doing well and creates the confidence/luck/whatever for everyone else to also do well collectively. Or a player starts doing poorly like fumbling the ball in football and suddenly everyone has fumble-itis.

Use of the term momentum is usually about how to affect those scenarios, as opposed to it existing or not. The good play streaks might be statistically random measured at an individual level, but coaches from either side might be able to affect team momentum or how they feed off of each other. That doesn't seem random statistically to me.

Interesting stuff.
 
RaleighTriad said:
After everyone thought he was the second coming of CP3 :eek:
Click to expand...

Would love to see some of those quotes directly comparing Codi to Chris Paul. "Everyone" sounds like a bit many for that comparison.

Should be some fun things to read once you pull them off the boards!
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Would love to see some of those quotes directly comparing Codi to Chris Paul. "Everyone" sounds like a bit many for that comparison.

Should be some fun things to read once you pull them off the boards!
Click to expand...

Hyperbole... not a strong point, huh?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
What do you mean by clutch? That player's perform "well" (define well) above their career average when "the game is on the line" (would need a definition of this time frame as well)?
Click to expand...

Free throws to ice the game, game winners, hell even a putt to seal the deal on 18. IMO some people perform above their natural ability levels when it is all on the line (see Ish Smith) while others play below their natural ability levels, or are anti clutch.
 
Momentum and the hot hand are very real. I think it has to do with a person unconsciously doing things better than usual. Perhaps your balance is just right when you shoot. Maybe your technique is just perfectly in sink. I have had rare days shooting the ball when the shot would feel almost perfect even before it left my hand. Humans almost always are flawed to some degree when performing athletic feats. Occasionally the subconscious mind has everything lined up. When that happens you almost feel like you can't miss. For me those days were rare but it is a tangible thing and you can feel it when it goes. There is no way to get it back when it goes (at least this was my experience).
 
When people get into tense situations, the very ancient primal "fight or flight" responses kick in. These allow the human body to perform beyond what it might normally do. However, individual bodies channel this extra ability differently. For some, this may result in the "muscle memory" of good shot training kicking in and give a higher chance of making a shot. Others may get overhyped and miss long on shots that they might otherwise make, or come up short as they overcompensate for the adrenaline rush.

There is also a psychological component. Some players are known as "cold blooded assassins" because they mentally believe that they are going to make the next shot. Chill's comment of "leave me in coach, I'm hot" after 10 misses is one example of this. Believing you can do something is a part of getting it done.
 
I appreciate the descriptions of what it FEELS like to "have momentum" or "the hot hand", but can you provide evidence that it exists statistically? Or is it just one of those "trust me, I feel it, it must be real" type of things?

I know you say it's "tangible", but what you are describing is basically the opposite of what tangible means (definitive/real).

The study I provided earlier shows that they believe a "hot hand" can exist between 1.2% to 2.4% points above what a shooter's "baseline" is (funneling out some of the noise surrounding the numbers by basically assessing shots from the same spot taken shortly after a certain number of makes), but beyond that it has not been statistically proven to exist.
 
Not everything human being can be broken down on an excel spreadsheet
 
wakelaw13 said:
After 80 pages do we have any idea whether he's credible yet?
Click to expand...

Depends. Where does Manning stand on high school track? This will tell us much of what we need to know to make the final determination.
 
Manning has us on the right path. Bring in Chaundee and Melo and things are lookin really good.
 
wakelaw13 said:
After 80 pages do we have any idea whether he's credible yet?
Click to expand...

I think we will have a better idea about after both Xavier and LSU. However, I think the picture will become much "clearer" roughly a little over half way through the ACC season. Unlike last season, we don't open up the first half of our conference schedule against "Murder's Row" (5 games against ranked teams, NCSU which is always a tough game, and at VTech which I don't remember the last time we won at their place). This season first 11 games:

Home: Clemson, BC, #7 UNC, Miami, #5 Duke, GTech
Away: FSU, #14 UVA, NCSU, Syracuse, BC

Personally, I think it's reasonable to expect to win 4 of the home games (Clemson, BC, GTech, and 1 against the other 3). On the road, I think 2 wins are possible (BC, and either 1 against FSU, Syracuse or NCSU). I do think the Syracuse game is very interesting because of their 2-3 zone, and is possible to win if we can shoot the 3 like we have at times in earlier games this season.

That would put us around 6-5, or maybe 5-6 with 7 games left, and hopefully the team can build confidence (something that no team within this Program has had in the previous 6 seasons) knowing that they can win against these teams and finish the season strong.

I think the question is what is the expected/"excepted" ACC record this season? Personally, with the favorable schedule I think anything less than 7 wins would be disappointing, 8-9 wins would be enough for me to see progress. Assuming we finish the non conference with a 9-3 record (don't see us beating Cavier on the road), and 17-13 or 18-12 we would be a lock for the NIT.

What do y'all think is considered acceptable this season?
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it is preposterous to believe things that can easily be explained by chance have meaning behind them. To think that probability and statistics can't be applied to athletics because it involves cognition is absurd. Let's trash science because "I have looked into the eyes of an opponent and known it to be true."

Just a quick search reveals this article about "human nature". That is, our nature, as I stated previously, which is to falsely attribute perceived phenomenon to something other than chance.

http://wexler.free.fr/library/files... on the misperception of random sequences.pdf

That is an interesting dichotomy being painted as well. A basic knowledge of statistics and experience playing sports must be mutually exclusive.
 
To be aligned to the topic of the thread - there is tangible evidence that Manning has us moving in a better direction. I see more talent and an improving offense. I do have some concerns about the insistence on the constant man-to-man D. It seems our guys can't keep their man in front of them and we are giving up way too many points and fouls. Anyone else have thoughts about how our defense has progressed?
 
PavlovsDog said:
To be aligned to the topic of the thread - there is tangible evidence that Manning has us moving in a better direction. I see more talent and an improving offense. I do have some concerns about the insistence on the constant man-to-man D. It seems our guys can't keep their man in front of them and we are giving up way too many points and fouls. Anyone else have thoughts about how our defense has progressed?
Click to expand...

I have no thoughts without statistics to show me what to think. Sorry. Or at least, I think I'm sorry, I haven't entered all that variables into the algorithm yet to know if I am truly sorry.
 
These stupid stats debates always ignore the important differences between descriptive and predictive stats. Anyone who has played a sport knows what it's like to be hot. I know when I see someone (or especially myself) sink a three or nail a drive it helps me visualize doing the same which helps to do the same. Once you've done it a few times, confidence helps your muscle memory, you can be less tight, etc. None of those effects are captured in descriptive statistics. Still, stats are useful in a predictive sense because you can say someone who is hot is likely not to stay hot forever. The larger the sample size the better the predictive capabilities. It's really not rocket science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top