Game Thread GAME# 45: BLAZERS @ KINGS - JANUARY 14, 2019 - MONDAY, 7:00 PM, NBCSNW (1 Viewer)

[PtldPlatypus]

So what you are saying is that CJ going 1-14 on 3’s during a game while Dame is 7-8 from 3, you don’t think it makes any difference in which of them takes the final “clutch” shot?

If hot hand means nothing, perhaps we should have Nurk take that final 3 as he is just as likely to make it as Dame as all shots are equal.

Let's not get it twisted. The opposition to "hot hand" theory simply states that Dame being 7-for-8 from 3 doesn't indicate that he's any more likely to make the ninth shot than if he were 1-for-8 prior to that same shot.

The probability of Nurk making a shot is based on Nurk's ability. The probability of Dame or CJ making a shot is based on their abilities. The abilities are not equal, so no, Nurk is not "as likely to make it as Dame".

 

[blue9]

Let's not get it twisted. The opposition to "hot hand" theory simply states that Dame being 7-for-8 from 3 doesn't indicate that he's any more likely to make the ninth shot than if he were 1-for-8 prior to that same shot.

The probability of Nurk making a shot is based on Nurk's ability. The probability of Dame or CJ making a shot is based on their abilities. The abilities are not equal, so no, Nurk is not "as likely to make it as Dame".

/end

 

[blazerboy30]

Again, you can't understand it because you haven't experienced it. You're speaking from an uninformed position. There's nothing I can say to convey to you what it is like, but you know it when you're in it.

No, you don't understand the math, so you're just throwing out terms like "mental state" and "experience" and other garbage that is completely useless in any concrete sense.

If it can't be quantified, and isn't determined from previous outcomes, then how would Stotts know when somebody has a "hot hand"?

 

[Blazers Roy]

LMAO...does he really think he can take Nurkic?

He doesnt know the difference between a white big and an Eastern European big.

 

[BonesJones]

Man, who put your flip-flops in the fridge?

Why didn't yall make this a meme? Yall failed.

 

[BonesJones]

No, you don't understand the math, so you're just throwing out terms like "mental state" and "experience" and other garbage that is completely useless in any concrete sense.

If it can't be quantified, and isn't determined from previous outcomes, then how would Stotts know when somebody has a "hot hand"?

From someone who played college ball, trust me. PTLDPlatypus is 100% correct.

 

[BonesJones]

I officially nominate this for Post of the Year.

I oFfIcIaLlY nOmInAtE tHiS...

 

[blazerboy30]

So what you are saying is that CJ going 1-14 on 3’s during a game while Dame is 7-8 from 3, you don’t think it makes any difference in which of them takes the final “clutch” shot?

No, it matters, but not for reasons the reasons you outlined (current game %) or last few shots. It depends on their expected, large sample size shooting percentages, how the defense is guarding them, etc, etc.

If hot hand means nothing, perhaps we should have Nurk take that final 3 as he is just as likely to make it as Dame as all shots are equal.

No, you're confusing expected probabilities and percentages with "hot hand". Dame has a higher percentage, given a large enough sample size, that the expectation is that he's more likely to make the shot than Nurk.

At the end of the season does everyone also get a participation trophy rather than having a champion as, by extension, no team can get “hot” either so crowning a champion is random discrimination.

Again, you're missing the point and building a strawman from a false premise.

Do you work for Stotts?

Nope. But I sure am glad Stotts pays attention to analytics instead of listening to fans throw out irrational, baseless claims.

 

[blazerboy30]

From someone who played college ball, trust me. PTLDPlatypus is 100% correct.

So the opinion of somebody playing at a tiny college, barely above high school level, overrides math and statistics? Got it.

 

[BonesJones]

So the opinion of somebody playing at a tiny college, barely above high school level, overrides math and statistics? Got it.

Could be someone who plays simply at the high school level. Maybe not even as high. When you're talking about a zone a player gets in that's not easily quantifiable, yes.

 

[blazerboy30]

Could be someone who plays simply at the high school level. Maybe not even as high. When you're talking about a zone a player gets in that's not easily quantifiable, yes.

Yet the data and stats show that this "zone" doesn't exist.

You're confusing causation and correlation. You only feel like you're in a zone once you've made a few shots in a row. But that has no predictive power about the outcome of the next shots.

 

[hoopsjock]

Yet the data and stats show that this "zone" doesn't exist.

You're confusing causation and correlation. You only feel like you're in a zone once you've made a few shots in a row. But that has no predictive power about the outcome of the next shots.

So confidence level has no impact on results at all?

 

[BonesJones]

Yet the data and stats show that this "zone" doesn't exist.

You're confusing causation and correlation. You only feel like you're in a zone once you've made a few shots in a row. But that has no predictive power about the outcome of the next shots.

Here's an example of "being in the zone" -- In my league, it's call your own fouls. Whenever there's some drama that legitimately pisses me off, it gets me in a bit of a zone. I almost always shoot a 3 right afterwards and hit 80-90% of them, even if I've been struggling all night. That's not "being in the zone once a few shots are made".

Shooting is as much a mental thing as it is physical. That's basketball in general. "The zone" is a mental state where you're essentially locked it. When I'm in the zone, I don't even feel anything when I shoot, and almost everything goes in. It's almost a feeling of lightheadedness (in a good way) or euphoria, and sometimes I enter it without even taking a shot. It's actually been proven by science but I read the piece a couple years ago and can't remember what it was.

It's essentially, a state of hyperfocus.

 

[BonesJones]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

 

[blazerboy30]

So confidence level has no impact on results at all?

That is what the research shows. Feel free to read the research paper I linked earlier.

 

[blazerboy30]

Here's an example of "being in the zone" -- In my league, it's call your own fouls. Whenever there's some drama that legitimately pisses me off, it gets me in a bit of a zone. I almost always shoot a 3 right afterwards and hit 80-90% of them, even if I've been struggling all night. That's not "being in the zone once a few shots are made".

Shooting is as much a mental thing as it is physical. That's basketball in general. "The zone" is a mental state where you're essentially locked it. When I'm in the zone, I don't even feel anything when I shoot, and almost everything goes in. It's almost a feeling of lightheadedness (in a good way) or euphoria, and sometimes I enter it without even taking a shot. It's actually been proven by science but I read the piece a couple years ago and can't remember what it was.

It's essentially, a state of hyperfocus.

Humans are notoriously bad about claiming they see patterns that don't exist.

 

[BonesJones]

In my senior year in high school, we were playing against our rivals who I hated. There were many kids there that would (essentially) bully me in 6th grade, when I was an awkward, uncoordinated kid. I switched schools in 6th grade, and that's the last they heard or saw of me until then, but they remembered me. Probably surprised I ended up playing varsity basketball. During dead balls, I would go stand in front of their student section on purpose and they were lighting me up. It'd make me remember of the fucked up things they did in the past, and it'd get me pissed, but now I had a sense of control on the court. I could make them pay, essentially.

I had 17 points in 18 minutes on 5-6 or something like that and hit a three to start the 2nd half. Started feeling really confident and almost cocky. Hit the next three after that. At that point, I KNEW that whatever 3pt shot I got, I was going to make. I knew it as well as I knew my own name. I knew it as well as I knew my own mother. I've never been in that much of a zone and state of mind before. I would've put my life on each 3pt shot I took after it. I knew I would make literally everything. The last 3 I made, it literally felt as easy as being over the rim and dunking it.

But as the "post" in the system, I didn't get another shot for 3 minutes afterwards, and then I got subbed out because we were up 30-something. But trust me, it exists.

 

[BonesJones]

Humans are notoriously bad about claiming they see patterns that don't exist.

Haha. That's a cop out response.

 

[blazerboy30]

In my senior year in high school, we were playing against our rivals who I hated. There were many kids there that would (essentially) bully me in 6th grade, when I was an awkward, uncoordinated kid. I switched schools in 6th grade, and that's the last they heard or saw of me until then, but they remembered me. Probably surprised I ended up playing varsity basketball. During dead balls, I would go stand in front of their student section on purpose and they were lighting me up. It'd make me remember of the fucked up things they did in the past, and it'd get me pissed, but now I had a sense of control on the court. I could make them pay, essentially.

I had 17 points in 18 minutes on 5-6 or something like that and hit a three to start the 2nd half. Started feeling really confident and almost cocky. Hit the next three after that. At that point, I KNEW that whatever 3pt shot I got, I was going to make. I knew it as well as I knew my own name. I knew it as well as I knew my own mother. I've never been in that much of a zone and state of mind before. I would've put my life on each 3pt shot I took after it. I knew I would make literally everything. The last 3 I made, it literally felt as easy as being over the rim and dunking it.

But as the "post" in the system, I didn't get another shot for 3 minutes afterwards, and then I got subbed out because we were up 30-something. But trust me, it exists.

Your random anectdotal stories don't prove anything other that you don't understand the underlying statistics.

 

[BonesJones]

Your random anectdotal stories don't prove anything other that you don't understand the underlying statistics.

You have no clue what you're talking about. You can't quantify a mental state. Making one three doesn't mean a player is in the zone, so your statistics are likely flawed based on previous makes when players aren't even "in the zone". I love how your trying to tell others that a mental state is false... A mental state that they've experienced, that's back by science, that you've never experienced.

 

[blazerboy30]

You have no clue what you're talking about. You can't quantify a mental state. Making one three doesn't mean a player is in the zone, so your statistics are likely flawed based on previous makes when players aren't even "in the zone". I love how your trying to tell others that a mental state is false... A mental state that they've experienced, that's back by science, that you've never experienced.

I'm not claiming you don't get a certain feeling or mental state. I'm telling you that it is due to the previous shots and what has already happened, but it provides no predictive value about upcoming shots.

You don't understand the statistics behind it, and that's ok. World renowned behavioral economists have shown that you're wrong.

 

[TBpup]

Why do I get the feeling that whomever came up with the data/science behind there being no 'zone', never played the sport and certainly was never in one. I've seen so many instances of players doing things that are so outside of their norm or even known ability but for that one stretch, they were in a different place. Their confidence got to be where form, balance or defense didn't matter and shots were going in they had never even practice.

Don't even care what the data says. I've seen too many examples.

 

[BonesJones]

@blazerboy30 I just started reading your "research paper" and it's beyond dumb... Comparing an action that someone has control over (Making a shot) compared to an action that someone has no control over (flipping heads or tails) is ridiculous. Also, making two shots can get a player in the zone mentally where he makes the following shot because of it, or it might not get him in the zone and he'll miss his next shot. Using the variation in these outcomes to try to disprove that players "get in the zone" and perform better because of it is very scientifically flawed.

Getting in the zone is rare. You can't disprove it by using general stats based on a general timeline. There often is little to no correlation between amount of makes and "getting in the zone", yet the paper tries to establish correlation on a linear basic. They even admit this, but then they try to account for it by comparing the frequency of good "four shot sequences" with chance, with no stated adjustment for the fact that these hot stretches correlates with a rise in shooting percentage. Using a shooting percentage that rises with hot stretches to try to determine the expected frequency of these hot sequences is scientifically flawed.

This is a perfect example of people who haven't played basketball at a high enough level trying to use numbers to try to simplify something that they know nothing about. There's so many variables that you cannot account for in a statistical analysis of "streak shooting". If someone hits 3 shots in a row, the other team is very likely to take away that players next shot or contest it much more heavily.

Basically, this research paper is absolute BS.

 

[BonesJones]

Why do I get the feeling that whomever came up with the data/science behind there being no 'zone', never played the sport and certainly was never in one. I've seen so many instances of players doing things that are so outside of their norm or even known ability but for that one stretch, they were in a different place. Their confidence got to be where form, balance or defense didn't matter and shots were going in they had never even practice.

Don't even care what the data says. I've seen too many examples.

The basic premise of it is flawed. The basic analysis is flawed. It's flawed as hell.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Humans are notoriously bad about claiming they see patterns that don't exist.

If we were talking about random events, nobody would argue with that. What happens on the court is not purely random and the patterns are real.

 

[BonesJones]

I'm not claiming you don't get a certain feeling or mental state. I'm telling you that it is due to the previous shots and what has already happened, but it provides no predictive value about upcoming shots.

You don't understand the statistics behind it, and that's ok. World renowned behavioral economists have shown that you're wrong.

Hahahahaha. World renowned psychologists (a study that is much more applicable to basketball than behavioral economics) have shown your wrong. You seem like the type of person to tell psychologists what they're saying is wrong if they can't prove it with statistics, and will apply some insanely basic and flawed statistical analysis to try to prove so.

But yeah, tell me how I've never been in the zone and how I'm mistaken... Some people man.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

@blazerboy30 I just started reading your "research paper" and it's beyond dumb... Comparing an action that someone has control over (Making a shot) compared to an action that someone has no control over (flipping heads or tails) is ridiculous. Also, making two shots can get a player in the zone mentally where he makes the following shot because of it, or it might not get him in the zone and he'll miss his next shot. Using the variation in these outcomes to try to disprove that players "get in the zone" and perform better because of it is very scientifically flawed.

Getting in the zone is rare. You can't disprove it by using general stats based on a general timeline. There often is little to no correlation between amount of makes and "getting in the zone", yet the paper tries to establish correlation on a linear basic. They even admit this, but then they try to account for it by comparing the frequency of good "four shot sequences" with chance, with no stated adjustment for the fact that these hot stretches correlates with a rise in shooting percentage. Using a shooting percentage that rises with hot stretches to try to determine the expected frequency of these hot sequences is scientifically flawed.

This is a perfect example of people who haven't played basketball at a high enough level trying to use numbers to try to simplify something that they know nothing about. There's so many variables that you cannot account for in a statistical analysis of "streak shooting". If someone hits 3 shots in a row, the other team is very likely to take away that players next shot or contest it much more heavily.

Basically, this research paper is absolute BS.

I feel like simple science is much better than all the statistical analysis in this case. Whats some things we know about Humans. Well when they’re in atheletic events they tend to have more adrenaline in their blood. Adrenaline at its apex does in fact make them do things they wouldnt normally do and we know that adrenaline and the extra blood flow helps the brain and concentration. The “zone” so to speak biologically is the apex of the adrenaline rush. It rarely lasts for very long, but in finely tuned athletes it will more than likely last for longer than normal people who get like 15-20 seconds out of it.

Anyone who’s ever had even a decent work out schedule has felt at least in a small way the “athelete adreneline” without the rush. Where youre going but not in over drive.

The statistics do almost always bear themselves out but the problem with “large samples of data” is that they tend to do a bad job on the smaller subsets. Like a guy could make 4-5 shots maybe the last one or two were that adrenaline spike, but he will crash from that eventually. the statistics will come back down. Not every time you’re “hot” are you in that zone, but certainly there are times where you are.

 

[DUB]

LMAO...does he really think he can take Nurkic?

Absolutely classic quote from Nurk.

For those of you who block twitter:

I'm not going to worry about it. He's going into retirement soon. I'm not going to worry about a guy who's going into retirement soon.

 

[blazerboy30]

Obviously everyone here wants to use anectdotal examples as proof over the actual statistics.

I'll drop it since nobody wants to have any data backed discussion on the topic, even though it's very interesting.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Obviously everyone here wants to use anectdotal examples as proof over the actual statistics.

I'll drop it since nobody wants to have any data backed discussion on the topic, even though it's very interesting.

http://www.sportingnews.com/us/othe...-peak-performances/1kugz4tuad8j513rgnpophp65q
http://www.sportpsychologytoday.com/youth-sports-psychology/understanding-the-zone-in-sports/

I've read many research papers about the "hot hand" and the arguments both ways. The analysis I've read has never ruled out that the "zone" or whatever we would like to call it doesn't exist.
If someone can be mentally thrown off and have a bad game, not sure how you could argue that they couldn't mentally be more in it and have a good game. I dislike that your argument to anyone who disagrees with you is they don't understand the "math". The math being used is pretty standard for anyone who has taken a statistics course, anyone who's done even a little bit of work in data science understands the "math" it isn't so complicated we need some to bless us with an answer key...

Some of your points I agree with, statistically speaking, the last shot or few shots going in doesn't effect if the next one will. I just think to dismiss completely the notion of the "hot hand" is something that you can't really do even the statistics have anomalies - it always does -.