I thought this was an interesting article, and I'm sure the number-crunchers here will appreciate. Plus Tony is on the article photo.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...orts-for-real/
Printable View
I thought this was an interesting article, and I'm sure the number-crunchers here will appreciate. Plus Tony is on the article photo.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0...orts-for-real/
I hope Stephen Curry gets the anti-hot hand tbh
Technically no, but we all believe in it anyway.
everyone who's played competitive ball knows that streaks and getting hot are as real as pancakess. It's mostly mental and confidence thing.
Elian Gonzalez is one of the most extreme cases of this syndrome and some ppl calling going supernova, I call it going Candela.
the confidence of little Elian is on another level right now. I'd say Spurs need to start putting him on his ass.
"confidence" in sports is a real thing.
Yes, it is. I'm unsure how someone who watches basketball could even question it.
The worst premise of these kinds of studies is that anyone who makes a shot has a "hot hand." Some guys make shots because of defensive lapses, and are less likely to get looks that are as good after that. Some guys are just playing their average make/miss ratio. And once in a while, a guy heats up and gets in the zone, or starts bricking his shots and gets ice cold.
The percentage of players on a real hot streak or cold streak at any given point in time isn't that huge, so you wouldn't expect it to really stand out in aggregate data like they use in these studies.
I watch basketball. I question it because I believe in science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
Here are some links that explain why your thinking is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_hand_fallacy
Here is a link that will change your life, if you take the time to understand it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
You're welcome!
The article comments on a ground-breaking statistical study... last I checked statistics are science, tbh.
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2246299/curryface.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by hater
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
Or who's ever played. Basketball is a sport that is almost ENTIRELY "hot hands"/streaks. I'm exaggerating, but it's a huge part. Like Allen Iverson said before, when you're on, it's like throwing rocks in the ocean. It very much feels that way when you're on, you believe every shot is going in.
Of course statistics are science.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
And apparently you didn't read the abstracts... I can't help but wonder if the article writer did either.
From an article that the author cites:
Not only does the journal say the data is not enough ... they state they can speculate, and they actually speculate that it's NOT based on hot hand!!! LOL to the NY Times. :lolQuote:
However, while statistical traces of this phenomenon are observed in the data, an open question still remains: are these non random patterns a result of “success breeds success” and “failure breeds failure” mechanisms or simply “better” and “worse” periods? Although free throws data is not adequate to answer this question in a definite way, we speculate based on it, that the latter is the dominant cause behind the appearance of the “hot hand” phenomenon in the data.
The facts in the article are fine; they appropriately say it "may be that" and that, "in some instances," hands can ignite. So they add enough qualifiers to make any real takeaway meaningless, which is I suppose good in a way. But the article is written with a slant that's supposed to lead the reader to believe that new data that better supports the idea of hot streaks has been found, and after reading all of the studies in the article, this isn't true.
:tu Nice - I was going to post something similar, but you beat me to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spur Bank
Well, statistics isn't a science in and of itself, but it is a major tool in the scientist's toolkit.Quote:
Of course statistics are science.
I was a teacher at a university here in Argentina, I taught statistics and econometrics.
And one very important thing about using this tools is to know and understand the difference between con causality and correlation. One doesn't necessary mean the other. Usually causality goes with correlation, but not always that works the other way around. I'm saying this because I do not agree with the way they tested it.
I play sports and the "hot hand" exists, and its almost every time confidence, like Hater said.
The easiest way to prove that is using Golf as an example. Whoever played golf knows that 99% of the shots are in a straight line. That's all you do...but usually you cant. But then one day, POW! HOT HAND!
Otherwise, Bonner would hit every 3, like he does at the gym.
Jordan had a famous 3 point shooting game.
Jeremy Lin anyone?
It exists, sometimes players do thing that they cant repeat.
Off course, that also goes for the "anti hot hand". Sometimes nothing you do seems to work. Zero confidence. You missed one, two..3...you get scared, hand shakes...that it, go home.
http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4c...l_facepalm.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Ryen Russelo (By far the best NBA analyst ESPN has) believes in them. Even though advanced stats, no matter how good, can't make the case for its existence. He has kind of swayed my opinion. Its definitely real, players can get hot and literally can't miss.
Yea it's real, Horry game 5
Citing specific examples does no good. The question is if past performance predicts future performance, not if past performance predicts more recent past performance.... we can find specific examples to fit any reasonable pattern we want to look for. We can even cite the same example as meaning different things (Curry in Q3 game 1, hot hand!! Curry in Q4 game 1, hot hand doesn't exist!!).
It mostly boils down to this:
1. Do you understand, or "believe in," math? If you do, you say hot hand doesn't exist, because a careful study of the numbers will back you up.
2. Do you think the human element overrides the mathematical evidence? If you do, you say hot hand exists, because you "know" it does, evidence be damned; you've SEEN it!
I have a concrete, falsifiable hypothesis regarding players feeling "in the zone:"
1. There is a significant set of players who can tell the difference between when their shot feels right and when it doesn't.
2. If you have the ability to record those players' EKGs and high-speed detailed mechanics of their shots without impairing their ability to play, there will be observable differences that corrrespond to those feelings.
3. There will be observable differences in those players' success rates at hitting shots of equivalent difficulty that correspond to those different mental states.
Physiologically, people can be anxious, tighten up, and exhibit poor mechanics because of their mental state. The opposite can be true. They might also be more or less injured, more or less fatigued, or be affected by various other conditions. None of these effects show up in aggregate statistics, but they all can have an effect on how likely a given player is to make a particular shot at a particular moment.
All shots by the same guy in the same area of a shot chart are not equivalent to operations of a statistical random variable in the same way that radioactive decay is. This should be obvious, even to scientists.
Having made several shots in a row gives you confidence, and confidence improves your performance in sports. As someone mentioned, golf is a great example. You have less distracting thoughts, you simply don't think/question yourself, your motions are more natural, your game flows. Same is true for jump shooters, I know I experience it. If this weren't the case, Tiger Woods would still be winning every single major he plays in. Maybe not every single one, but he would have won a major by now. He won 14 majors in 14 years, but hasn't won one since 2008.
I think you can believe and understand math/statistics while also seeing how confidence affects your play. Call it whatever you want, hot hands, confidence, w/e it is, it definitely is a factor in sports.
Thank you sir :tuQuote:
Originally Posted by tesseractive
Statistics is a mathematical system. Epistemlogically speaking, math and science are about as far apart as two knowledge systems can get.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Science uses statistics, but statistics themselves are not science.
Oops. Browser fail.
Devil is in the details. Thanks. :tuQuote:
Originally Posted by Spur Bank
I believe a clutch player is a player who can play to his max capabilities when the moment is at its highest.
Statistics (science)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
It depends on what people mean by hot hand? If they mean the statistics independent of any other factors, then no, it doesn't exist. Thinking so pretty much causes the gambler's ruin scenario.
Every statistical event is independent, so the probability of something occurring again is not related to the what happened in the past. For example, the probability of getting a heads on a fair coin is .5. That's true even if the last 20000 flips before it were heads. If humans were like coins, then believing the hot hand would be ludicrous.
But applying statistical theories at such a shallow level of analysis is fool-hardy. A player is not an automaton who has a fixed probability distribution every time he shoots. His success rate depends on a lot of situations, such as confidence, as mentioned above. Also, things such as the physical state of the player, crowd noise, the temperature of the ball etc. can come into play. If we could quantify all of those factors, we would indeed find certain situations in which a player has a higher probability of making shots. The hot-hand idea is just a non-statistical way to describe that phenomenon.
This...Quote:
Originally Posted by ALVAREZ6
"Hot Hands" is a real thing in any sport. I used to shoot rifles competitively and every once in a while I would get in the zone, my best "in the zone" moment was at state competition... I cant even remember hearing the other rifles going off, all I could see was the targets. I still get a rush thinking about that day... hit a 298 out of a possible 300, that's 10 shots through each of the 3 positions, standing, kneeling and prone.... meaning I hit dead center on 28 of my 30 shots, the other 2 where judged 1 ring out of center. Even hit dead-center on my 2 practice shots before I started. I also finished a good 3 minutes before anyone else.
Granted, it was held in-doors so I didnt have to dope or use my mil dots as my scope was dialed in perfectly, but it was still an awesome feeling to walk away with that score.
That makes no sense. Facepalm for passing along an article that apparently some people feel worth discussing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius McCrary
smh
It's a common mistake that many people make. I'm disappointed in Britannica for doing it, too. If you read the article, they aren't even describing a science; they're describing a mathematical system. Science is a term being applied too lazily today.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I guess it's fine to refer to statistics as a science, but then it loses its a priori power. Meaning, it becomes open fallacy for no good reason. If people accepted if as math and not science, then it would be a stronger discipline.
You can tell which people in this thread have and have not played basketball competitively, or any sports in general.
In basketball arguments, there's usually:
A) Advanced stats haters that don't understand the concept of informative numbers and data..they generally use terms like "killer instinct" and use double standards..they usually dislike advanced stats because the numbers don't support their favorite player..
Ex. Kobe fans
B) Advanced stat nerds that ignore variables in basketball and stubbornly support their flawed formulas..
Ex. Wages of Wins supporters
I fall in the logical group that uses numbers, in addition to actually playing basketball and understanding circumstances, tbh:lol..
Studies of this nature are generally supported by people that don't play sports, tbh..
tesseractive, my comments are in bold blue
The main issue I have with your post is that you're not arguing the hot hands theory. You're saying there are many factors that can influence a basketball shot... and yes, there are tons. But that's not what we're examining here. We're looking at whether a player on a hot streak is more likely to keep making shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by tesseractive
You said "none of these effects show up in aggregate statistics." What do you mean by that? That's the big argument on my side, and it's a pretty massive argument because it's the very definition of the question. To put it simply, the argument is: Statistically, a player on a hot streak is NOT more likely to keep making shots. This can be verified by examining the data. Therefore, the hot hands argument is a fallacy.
Everything you said is fine and true, but it doesn't refute that argument at all.
I was thinking you can also tell who got a decent education.Quote:
Originally Posted by _JaG
But oddly, I somehow fall in both your category and mine.
You're welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spur Bank
Great post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
There are so many factors involved that cannot be quantified, so analysts are left to assume the players are robots and each attempt occurs in a vacuum. They view previous FG attempts as no different than previous coin flips.
I don't get it. And not that it matters, but I played basketball in high school (no, not college) and still play in rec leagues.
A lot of people know about statistics - not many understand how to apply it. A lot of people know about sports - not many understand what goes on at a high level. And almost none of the people who try to apply statistics to sports know what the hell they're talking about. It's that simple.
Anyone who's played competitive golf knows that there are days when the cup looks as big as a dinner plate. You feel like you can make every putt, and you DO make far more than normal. Baseball players see the ball larger and slower than normal. And basketball players talk about the hoop looking like a washtub. Maybe it's a matter of physical and mental abilities being at their peak at the same time. A lot of people have tried to quantify it by talking about "biorhythms". Nobody knows. But on certain days, the game is just easier than normal. And on those days, more shots go down. No "maybe", no illusion, no fallacy. The shots fall. Call it a "hot hand" or whatever you want.
As for the math? One guy shoots 3's at a 30% clip for an entire season - another shoots them at a 40% rate. What's the difference? Could be any of dozens of things. Most likely several small things. But if you watch a random guy put up a 3-pointer, do you know whether the ball had a 30% chance, or a 40% chance of going in? Nope. You can only tell that by looking at his season statistics. Observing, you can only see that it went in, or didn't go in. Now... suppose that the 30% shooter is "feeling it" physically and mentally, and shoots the ball EXACTLY like the guy who shoots at 40%. When he puts the ball up, is there any way you can tell that his shot is 33% more likely than normal to fall? (A 10% increase is 33% of his normal 30%.) Nope. The shot either falls or it doesn't. And at the end of the night, if he goes 4-10 instead of his usual 3-10, could you tell that it's because his stroke, and his confidence, were both better that night? Nope. Guys who shoot 30% have 4-10 nights, just like they have 2-10, or 1-10 nights.
If you've ever played sports at a moderately high level, you know when you see a guy who is in the zone. The bat looks like a toothpick in his hands. When he does miss a putt, it catches the lip and looks like it's going in. His shooting stroke looks smooth as silk, and maybe he's elevating a little more than normal without seeming to try. But even guys who are in the zone get tired - see: Curry, Steph. And even guys with a "hot hand" don't make them all.
Athletes get in the zone. Period, end of story. No mis-applied, non-sequitir math formula can change that. And the pencil-necked, no-sports-playing mathematicians can kiss my ass.
"Decent" is a relative term. I enjoy and understand statistics, but as an engineer I also understand why statisticians are rarely allowed to make critial decisions in the business world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spur Bank
You say if we could quantify factors such as the physical state of the player, crowd noise, the temperature of the ball, etc., we would indeed find certain situations in which a player has a higher probability of making shots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
Then why don't we? If what you say is true, shots would follow a poisson binomial distribution (similar to a binomial distribution that has changing parameters), and the hot hand theory would be statistically true. Analysts could estimate the p parameter of prior shots and use that to determine future expected outcomes. But we don't see that. The only possible explanation for that is because it doesn't exist.
There are so many things wrong with this post, I don't know where to begin.Quote:
Originally Posted by GSH
You feel like you can make every putt, and you DO make far more than normal. -- Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion
And on those days, more shots go down. No "maybe", no illusion, no fallacy. The shots fall. -- Wrong word at the end. The shots fell. They won't continue to fall.
But even guys who are in the zone get tired - see: Curry, Steph -- LOLed at you using a counterexample of hot hand as something that supports your argument.
Athletes get in the zone. Period, end of story. -- Yes, they get in zones. It just doesn't affect their ability to make future shots. The math behind it is very simple.
Good response. To put it more precisely:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spur Bank
1. The statistical variable "last shot went in" is not a good representation of what players mean by feeling in the zone, so the fact that it is a poor predictor of the outcome of the next shot doesn't have any particular bearing on whether players can be right when they feel they have a hot hand.
2. There are a great many mental and physical factors that a player's mind can use in recognizing a pattern the player can recognize as "feeling hot" or "feeling cold." Human brains are really good at assimilating lots of data and recognizing a pattern. To develop a good statistical variable to reflect this feeling, you would either need to record comparable data and perform similar pattern recognition, or use EKGs to identify an "in the zone" brain heat map and use that as your variable.
3. I hypothesize that it is possible, given sufficient data collection, to successfully perform (2) and produce a variable that is a statistically significant predictor of shot success and that reflects a player's feeling that he has a hot hand.
The problem comes from the fact that analysts don't know HOW to quantify those factors. If you made a basketball simulation, then you could set those equations and make a pretty realistic game. But they can't get it exact, because there're too many details that they don't know. We didn't make our universe, so we didn't make up the math behind it. That doesn't make those factors impossible to ever know, though, or at least to approximate well enough for our tastes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spur Bank
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinook
Thanks for the clarifications. :toastQuote:
Originally Posted by tesseractive
I'm on board with these ideas. Point #3 above interesting, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were correct. To rephrase what you said ... just because a player has made a bunch of shots in a row doesn't mean he has a hot hand or is in the zone, hence, why that statistical correlation doesn't exist; but if we could better measure what truly should be considered in the zone, then it likely would. Very interesting idea, it certainly makes sense.
Klay Thompson is fucking hot right now, shooting 7/8 from 3 and hitting a wide variety of different types of 3s...spot up, off the dribble, slightly fading, you name it. He is fucking hot and no one can refute this.
:lmao at this thread and it's timing :lmao
where is longtimespurfan when you need him :lmao
I think it would be really interesting to develop a compact brain mapping system that could fit, in say, an NFL players helmet... Set this up in a lot of players helmets across the league and check their brain activity to cross reference with actual performance. unfortunately, I dont think there is yet a way to miniaturize it to that scale just yet where it wouldnt hamper a players performance.
This type of study COULD work however for competitive sports where the individual doesnt have to move around much, such as my old sport, competitive shooting. Check the brain activity vs actual performance across a given period of time against a large number of individual competitors. It would be interesting to see if there was any correlation to certain brain activity when being in "the zone" is perceived by the individual competitor. Another easy way to do this, while not a physical sport, would be to hook up brain monitoring systems to "professional" PC/XBOX/PS3 players vs your average gamer. It may not be physical but the mental part still plays a factor and might even generate an even better result as you take the physicality our of the equation and only focus on the mental side of it.