Reply With Quote
I hope Stephen Curry gets the anti-hot hand tbh
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 compe ive 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.
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.
This.
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.
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.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.
Nice - I was going to post something similar, but you beat me to it.
Well, statistics isn't a science in and of itself, but it is a major tool in the scientist's toolkit.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.
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
Statistics is a mathematical system. Epistemlogically speaking, math and science are about as far apart as two knowledge systems can get.
Science uses statistics, but statistics themselves are not science.
Oops. Browser fail.
Devil is in the details. Thanks.Of course statistics are science.
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.
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.
I believe a clutch player is a player who can play to his max capabilities when the moment is at its highest.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
