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

[blazerboy30]

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 -.

The discussion began by calling out Stotts for not riding the hot hand. If a "hot hand" is an anomaly in the data then why would one expect Stotts to see it?

It's an absurd stance to take. If it's so obvious to spot, it would show up in the data.

 

[GrandpaBlaze]

Stats is the art of generalizing a data set, anomalies and all into a probability.

Anomalies have the distinction of being outside the norm.

We are not saying “the zone” is the norm but is an anomaly and it should be recognized that anomalies exist.

I hear you using “stats” to say they don’t exist.

I call BS

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

The discussion began by calling out Stotts for not riding the hot hand. If a "hot hand" is an anomaly in the data then why would one expect Stotts to see it?

It's an absurd stance to take. If it's so obvious to spot, it would show up in the data.

I guess I have a couple thoughts here, a coach should or will usually bench a guy who isnt playing well or say hey there “head wasnt in the game”, disregarding just shooting, playing a player who is definitely engaged mentally seems to be something a coach would do. I remember Pop saying sometimes he would bench Manu because he was playing poorly and some nights he’d ride Manu for 35 minutes because he was playing well.

I personally am of the opinion that Stotts does stick too closely to his rotation at times, like when a guy is clearly engaged in the game playing well, I wouldnt bench him. Or when a player clearly is playing bad and forcing shots or not playing in the offense Id bench him. In terms of things I get frustrated at with Stotts thats not high on the list.

The idea and concept of a player being in the “Zone” is an interesting one though and I have a hard time saying it just doesnt exist. I feel like maybe 2-3 times Ive had that feeling that everything was going in or every read I made was the right one, but I wouldnt call my feelings as anything more than anecdoctal evidence and flawed because of that.

 

[Scalma]

There definitely is a thing called the zone and if you reject the idea, you’re a moron sorry not sorry.

 

[Scalma]

LMFAOOOOO

 

[TBpup]

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.

And you would get an anecdotal story from everyone who has every played a sport and been in a zone, seen a teammate in a zone, or played against someone who was in a zone. There are far too many of those at so many different levels to dismiss.

Talk to Hall of Fame coach Chuck Daly about players being in a 'zone'. Much of his coaching premise was to find that guy and then ride him out until the zone came to an end.

 

[KingSpeed]

The zone is real. Watch the 4th quarter of Game 5 of the 1994 ECF. I've been in the zone too. Many times. You get to a place where you just throw the ball up and it keeps going in. Hell, I was entering the zone when I shot the three at Moda. I just throwing up off balance shots and they kept going in.

 

[BonesJones]

The zone is real. Watch the 4th quarter of Game 5 of the 1994 ECF. I've been in the zone too. Many times. You get to a place where you just throw the ball up and it keeps going in. Hell, I was entering the zone when I shot the three at Moda. I just throwing up off balance shots and they kept going in.

Making 3 three in a row in shootaround doesn't mean you're entering the zone haha. I've made 30 threes in a row before. That was a zone.

 

[kjironman1]

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.

Got to say you are right on this one Bones but i can't give any numbers that would back you up. I know i had times in games no matter the sport where i was unstoppable. I also can't say there was a reason other than i had a good game at the right time. But yeah it definitely happened. I also experienced it in the military at times but that was another ball game altogether.

 

[blue9]

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

No it's not. He's right about probability. It's math. What's flawed is the way he's applying the idea of probability.

 

[blazerboy30]

Got to say you are right on this one Bones but i can't give any numbers that would back you up. I know i had times in games no matter the sport where i was unstoppable. I also can't say there was a reason other than i had a good game at the right time. But yeah it definitely happened. I also experienced it in the military at times but that was another ball game altogether.

Still nothing but anectdotal stories with no data to back it up.

If someone shoots 75% in practice, there's a 0.3% chance that a sequence of 20 shots all go in. So someone that is practicing a lot would expect to see this quite often and still be easily explained by the statistical expectation. It's not some mythical zone.

That player would expect this to happen about 3 times for every 1000 shots. They would expect to make 30 in a row every ~6000 shots, possibly almost every day.

 

[kjironman1]

Still nothing but anectdotal stories with no data to back it up.

If someone shoots 75% in practice, there's a 0.3% chance that a sequence of 20 shots all go in. So someone that is practicing a lot would expect to see this quite often and still be easily explained by the statistical expectation. It's not some mythical zone.

That player would expect this to happen about 3 times for every 1000 shots. They would expect to make 30 in a row every ~6000 shots, possibly almost every day.

I can't argue because in fact you are absolutely correct. That is exactly why i said i can't give any numbers to back any of my feelings about it up. I just know there are times throwing pitches i knew i was going to throw a strike and it was going to graze the inside corner of the plate. There were times i knew that i was going to dominate the other teams Fly half (Rugby). I knew that i was going to thread the needle on a pass between the Linebacker and Corner. I knew the sights were right and i was on target because it had to be or people died.
Your statistics cannot be argued with. However the same thing can be said about my feeling when i drain the shot and tap my wrist.

 

[THE HCP]

You guys want me to ask the players if there is something called a "ZONE" and if they have ever been in one?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

You guys want me to ask the players if there is something called a "ZONE" and if they have ever been in one?

Go for it. However, their response will never convince @blazerboy30

 

[hoopsjock]

You guys want me to ask the players if there is something called a "ZONE" and if they have ever been in one?

Nah, we already know the answer is that every single player will say that there is a zone and give you a story about when they were in it.

 

[blazerboy30]

Go for it. However, their response will never convince @blazerboy30

Of course there is something "called" the "zone". Just because there is a label doesn't mean it has any real predictive power. They can have an opinion, just like everyone here is posting theirs. But that doesn't dispute the fact that it's well documented that people claim to see patterns that aren't real. Another example is in the stock market, and most people make less money than not trading at all.

This discussion reminds me of the scouts in the book / movie Moneyball. They were so convinced by their anecdotal examples that they wanted to argue the data. We're seeing how all that is turning out as the entire league is shifting towards data, not "gut feel".

 

[blazerboy30]

Your statistics cannot be argued with. However the same thing can be said about my feeling when i drain the shot and tap my wrist.

Sure. But why not tap your wrist before you shoot? I'm sure you feel great after making a shot, but hindsight is 20/20, so tapping your wrist is a reaction, not a prediction.

 

[Blazerfanforlife30]

Sure. But why not tap your wrist before you shoot? I'm sure you feel great after making a shot, but hindsight is 20/20, so tapping your wrist is a reaction, not a prediction.

Haha good point!

There are a lot of studies that back up what you are saying!

Here's one example:

"A 2003 study by Koehler, J. J. & Conley C. A. was conducted to examine the hot hand in professional basketball. In this study the researchers examined film from the NBA shooting contests from 1994–1997. Through studying the film of the contests the researchers hoped to find evidence of sequential dependency within each shooter across all shots. They also searched for sequential dependencies within each shooter per set of 25 continuous shots, and employed a variety of novel techniques for isolating hot performance. According to the hot hand a player should have very few runs and instead their hits and misses should be in clusters.

In their research there were only two players who had a significantly lower number of runs than expected by chance. No shooter had significantly more runs than would be expected by chance. About half of the shooters (12 of 23 = 52%) had fewer runs than expected, and about half (11 of 23 = 48%) had more runs than expected. The researchers also compared the shooters hits and misses. The data were more in accordance with chance than the hot hand. Through their analysis of the data the conclusion was drawn that there was nothing that supported the hot hand hypothesis.

A study reported that a belief in the hot-hand fallacy affects a player's perceptions of success."

 

[kjironman1]

You guys want me to ask the players if there is something called a "ZONE" and if they have ever been in one?

I'd like to know their response but i'm pretty sure i already know. But absolutely it would be cool to hear what they said.

 

[hoopsjock]

Haha good point!

There are a lot of studies that back up what you are saying!

Here's one example:

"A 2003 study by Koehler, J. J. & Conley C. A. was conducted to examine the hot hand in professional basketball. In this study the researchers examined film from the NBA shooting contests from 1994–1997. Through studying the film of the contests the researchers hoped to find evidence of sequential dependency within each shooter across all shots. They also searched for sequential dependencies within each shooter per set of 25 continuous shots, and employed a variety of novel techniques for isolating hot performance. According to the hot hand a player should have very few runs and instead their hits and misses should be in clusters.

In their research there were only two players who had a significantly lower number of runs than expected by chance. No shooter had significantly more runs than would be expected by chance. About half of the shooters (12 of 23 = 52%) had fewer runs than expected, and about half (11 of 23 = 48%) had more runs than expected. The researchers also compared the shooters hits and misses. The data were more in accordance with chance than the hot hand. Through their analysis of the data the conclusion was drawn that there was nothing that supported the hot hand hypothesis.

A study reported that a belief in the hot-hand fallacy affects a player's perceptions of success."

Did you just create another account to agree with yourself?

 

[Blazerfanforlife30]

I'd like to know there response but i'm pretty sure i already know. But absolutely it would be cool to hear what they said.

I think there's a difference between what people experience and the story that stats tell...

 

[kjironman1]

Sure. But why not tap your wrist before you shoot? I'm sure you feel great after making a shot, but hindsight is 20/20, so tapping your wrist is a reaction, not a prediction.

Ah but i have! Any time any where baby! Just say the word! Go talk to Larry Bird about telling everyone in the three point contest he was going to go collect his check. "They might as well sign his name right now". Then he went out and blew them all away.

 

[riverman]

I was just in the Auto Zone yesterday...they're the only place that still stocks parts for my little old red truck..the auto zone is for real folks

 

[riverman]

I think there's a difference between what people experience and the story that stats tell...

Read any great autobiography and you'll find both usually...library section 920 or 921...if you are a true stats freak read Hubbie Brown's book....that dude can ramble

 

[oldmangrouch]

Of course there is something "called" the "zone". Just because there is a label doesn't mean it has any real predictive power. They can have an opinion, just like everyone here is posting theirs. But that doesn't dispute the fact that it's well documented that people claim to see patterns that aren't real. Another example is in the stock market, and most people make less money than not trading at all.

This discussion reminds me of the scouts in the book / movie Moneyball. They were so convinced by their anecdotal examples that they wanted to argue the data. We're seeing how all that is turning out as the entire league is shifting towards data, not "gut feel".

What everyone forgets: the Oakland draft used in the book to "prove" that scouts knew less than sta-heads was pretty much a complete disaster. The best player they drafted that year was the guy the scouts and stat-heads actually agreed on.

 

[Blazerfanforlife30]

There definitely is a thing called the zone and if you reject the idea, you’re a moron sorry not sorry.

I think you are all referring to the "flow state" a concept from positive psychology of hyper-focus, intense concentration, confidence, loss of self-consciousness, etc ... I'm sure most professional players have experienced that at one time or another... HOWEVER, that still does not mean that statistically speaking they are more likely to make the next shot they take... I'm sure there are times when players feel confident and take a shot... and they miss. Just because you feel confident or hyperfocused doesn't CAUSE better stats.

 

[TBpup]

I think I get it now. Everyone who has played a sport has at one time or another been in the 'zone'.

However, to those who never have experienced it, it doesn't exist.

Got it.

 

[BonesJones]

No it's not. He's right about probability. It's math. What's flawed is the way he's applying the idea of probability.

Is not right in comparing a random event to a controllable event.

 

[blazerboy30]

Is not right in comparing a random event to a controllable event.

1) If you shoot 50% from 3 while practicing over the last 5 years, what is the probability you will make your next 3 pointer in practice?

2) If it's a controllable event, why don't you control it to go in every time?

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I think you are all referring to the "flow state" a concept from positive psychology of hyper-focus, intense concentration, confidence, loss of self-consciousness, etc ... I'm sure most professional players have experienced that at one time or another... HOWEVER, that still does not mean that statistically speaking they are more likely to make the next shot they take... I'm sure there are times when players feel confident and take a shot... and they miss. Just because you feel confident or hyperfocused doesn't CAUSE better stats.

So being focused doesnt increase the probability of a shot going in vs being unfocused... Lol. Then how come in an open Gym most NBA 3 point shooters can hit like 70ish percent but when their on a court with distractions they’re like 30% worse if not more... Being focused does cause better stats. You can argue the zone thing all you want but this part of your arguement literally doesnt make sense whatsoever.