What role does Momentum play...?

[BrianFromWA]

In the playoffs? For a fanbase or for a team?

I mean, if we'd have been crushed in Game One and won Game 2 105-100, then we'd probably be pretty happy in here, all things considered.

But is there something to be said for regression? The homer in me says "wait 'til we get to the Rose Garden--we'll blow them away in the next 2 games." The basketball fan inside of me says "we got exposed on a bunch of different levels, and they have the momentum".

What say you? Momentum is a big deal, or having HCA now is a bigger deal?

 

[MIXUM]

we got exposed. game 1 was a fluke imo

if batums out its over

 

[MAS RipCity]

certainly didn't hurt the Rockets last year and didn't help us in either the 92 Finals or 2000 WCF where we lost 1 and won 2.
I'll take a 1-1 split regardless of how badly we lost in Game 2

 

[BlazerCaravan]

The playoffs are a series of revenge games: you act, adjust, re-adjust... etc. Getting the first win forces the other team to react to you, but then you get a change to react as well if they beat you again. So the first winner is in the driver's seat, getting games 1-3-5-7 as their action/reaction games, where the team that loses game 1 gets only 2-4-6 as their reaction games (since their initial action in game 1 failed). This is all because, after a win, you try the same thing in the next game because nothing succeeds like success. You don't totally change your game between win 1 and the next game.

This type of revenge/reaction bounceback is expected in the playoffs; if we'd won game 2 instead of game 1, we'd be heading home, but with the other team more ready to react to our win... we'd be more vulnerable in a game 3 having won game 2. Now, we've seen their next move, and will come out in game 3 ready to make our next move. Our system won't be stale; we'll have fresh motivation and ammunition to make our next shift in strategy.

I'm very glad we won game 1, and not surprised we lost game 2. I think this helps us for game 3. And if the home crowd can help us out, we might be able to take game 4 as well.

 

[EPIC FAIL GILDERHUS]

Grant Hill and Jason Richardson had career nights-if that happens again, which I seriously doubt, then the Suns are going all the way. I just think that we ran into a team that was playing with a lot of desperation, got their crowd behind them early, and got a bunch of flukey in-close misses from us. No way we get blown out like that again.

 

[Wheels]

The playoffs are a series of revenge games: you act, adjust, re-adjust... etc. Getting the first win forces the other team to react to you, but then you get a change to react as well if they beat you again. So the first winner is in the driver's seat, getting games 1-3-5-7 as their action/reaction games, where the team that loses game 1 gets only 2-4-6 as their reaction games (since their initial action in game 1 failed). This is all because, after a win, you try the same thing in the next game because nothing succeeds like success. You don't totally change your game between win 1 and the next game.

This type of revenge/reaction bounceback is expected in the playoffs; if we'd won game 2 instead of game 1, we'd be heading home, but with the other team more ready to react to our win... we'd be more vulnerable in a game 3 having won game 2. Now, we've seen their next move, and will come out in game 3 ready to make our next move. Our system won't be stale; we'll have fresh motivation and ammunition to make our next shift in strategy.

I'm very glad we won game 1, and not surprised we lost game 2. I think this helps us for game 3. And if the home crowd can help us out, we might be able to take game 4 as well.

this

 

[chris_in_pdx]

History: The Lakers were crushed by the Blazers in Game 2 of the 2000 WCF. They came back to win Games 3 and 4 on the RG court. Unless a team is mentally fragile and prone to collapse, like the 99 Blazer squad was, momentum plays a very limited role game to game.

 

[HailBlazers]

if batums out its over

For sure, and if Roy doesn't play we wont even win a game in this series...

 

[anonymous gambler]

I think we can still take the series. We just need to take a breath, relax.

 

[TripTango]

In terms of tangible results (wins vs. losses, makes vs. misses), momentum has been statistically exposed as insignificant over and over again. The simple fact is that good teams playing well tend to win, and this naturally leads to streaks. Fans and talking heads observe these streaks and call it "momentum", when in fact it's just a natural result of playing well. Whatever psychological boost a player might get from having won the previous game is almost always washed out by the many other, more significant factors.

From "Winning Streaks in Sports and the Misperception of Momentum"

There is an almost universal belief by athletes, sports fans and media observers that momentum is an important force in sports contests. Terms such as winning streaks, the hot hand in basketball shooting, and batting slumps in baseball are part of the lexicon of sports and are examples of perceived momentum. Prior research has demonstrated that athletes perceive that momentum exists, but evidence of the effect of momentum on performance within individual athletic contests has proved elusive. This research extends that exploration by looking for momentum over a season. Actual winning and losing streaks for the 28 major league baseball teams and the 29 National Basketball Association teams were compared to streaks that would have occurred under the assumption that game outcome is independent of the outcome of the most recent previous games. [...] The results suggest that sports participants and observers place an unjustified importance on momentum as a causal factor in outcomes of sport contests.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-62990408/winning-streaks-sports-and.html

From "The Hot Hand in Basketball: On the Misperception of Random Sequences"

We investigate the origin and the validity of common beliefs regarding “the hot hand” and “streak shooting” in the game of basketball. Basketball players and fans alike tend to believe that a player’s chance of hitting a shot are greater following a hit than following a miss on the previous shot. However, detailed analyses of the shooting records of the Philadelphia 76ers provided no evidence for a positive correlation between the outcomes of successive shots. The same conclusions emerged from free-throw records of the Boston Celtics, and from a controlled shooting experiment with the men and women of Cornell’s varsity teams. The outcomes of previous shots influenced Cornell players’ predictions but not their performance. The belief in the hot hand and the “detection” of streaks in random sequences is attributed to a general misconception of chance according to which even short random sequences are thought to be highly representative of their generating process.
(http://wexler.free.fr/library/files... on the misperception of random sequences.pdf)

 

[BlazerCaravan]

There was a great explanation of those concepts in a recent Radio Lab episode: basically a "hot streak" is an illusion where players are no more likely to hit the next shot as the shot before it, but because they happen to hit the shot, the brain retroactively assigns a reason for that confluence of randomness ("Oh, he must have a hot hand"). Because randomness does occur in clumps, not spread out evenly, this sort of thing does happen enough to make the "hot hand" seem like a real occurrence, when it's actually just the brain trying to find a pattern in a string of randomness.

 

[TripTango]

There was a great explanation of those concepts in a recent Radio Lab episode: basically a "hot streak" is an illusion where players are no more likely to hit the next shot as the shot before it, but because they happen to hit the shot, the brain retroactively assigns a reason for that confluence of randomness ("Oh, he must have a hot hand"). Because randomness does occur in clumps, not spread out evenly, this sort of thing does happen enough to make the "hot hand" seem like a real occurrence, when it's actually just the brain trying to find a pattern in a string of randomness.

Nice call -- http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/09/11

Basically, the human brain is just not very good at recognizing (or imitating) random distributions.

 

[BGrantFan]

There was a great explanation of those concepts in a recent Radio Lab episode: basically a "hot streak" is an illusion where players are no more likely to hit the next shot as the shot before it, but because they happen to hit the shot, the brain retroactively assigns a reason for that confluence of randomness ("Oh, he must have a hot hand"). Because randomness does occur in clumps, not spread out evenly, this sort of thing does happen enough to make the "hot hand" seem like a real occurrence, when it's actually just the brain trying to find a pattern in a string of randomness.

Are you talking about randonmess by the observer, or a feeling of "hotness" by the athlete. I ask because I had periods in my career where I knew the next shot was going to go into the basket, and it didn't matter who was guarding me or how far behind the 3pt line I was. Was this confidence a product of hitting a few random shots before that, or did I make the baskets because I had high confidence?

I've actually wondered about that at times, and I'm sure most people who played collegiate, or heck, even HS sports have had that "out of body" experience. A very interesting concept, BlazerCaravan. I'll see if I can find that episode on Hulu.

 

[BGrantFan]

Nice call -- http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/09/11

Basically, the human brain is just not very good at recognizing (or imitating) random distributions.

Thanks for the link! I was just going to look for it. Something that I ponder is this: does the elevated confidence level that some athletes get from a random "hot" streak actually impact their play after that random stretch is over.

In other words, can certain athletes improve peformance and "beat" chance simply by their state of mind?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Nice call -- http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/09/11

Basically, the human brain is just not very good at recognizing (or imitating) random distributions.

The brain, the reason we're successful as a species without claws or fangs or fur, is very very very good at recognizing patterns to exploit. Migration paths and timing, expected locations of water holes and so on. What made us great hunters is still used today; you see it in very very talented individuals in finance and sports: the "killer instinct" is all about exploitng those patterns you detect instinctively.

So it makes perfect sense that (a) a highly sensitive pattern-matching brain is good at sports; (b) that this same brain will generate false positives (like the "hot hand"); and (c) that because this brain is good at sports, there's a bunch of people in and around sports that think the "hot hand" is very real.

Make no mistake: even though it's a false positive, it's not a liability. Why? Because if Rudy hits two 3-pointers in a row, but then misses 2, the "hot hand" pattern is broken. Other patterns ("cold streak") take over. But discipline ("shooters need to shoot out of a slump") allows randomness to improve the chances of success (i.e., the more you shoot, the more chances you have to hit a shot).

 

[TripTango]

Thanks for the link! I was just going to look for it. Something that I ponder is this: does the elevated confidence level that some athletes get from a random "hot" streak actually impact their play after that random stretch is over.

In other words, can certain athletes improve peformance and "beat" chance simply by their state of mind?

It is an interesting question, and from what I understand, the exact psychological impact of confidence itself is still very much an open question. However, from just a numbers standpoint, it's pretty easy to measure the impact of momentum. Just tally up the results of all shots that happened immediately AFTER a made shot. If shooting streaks are meaningful for predicting future results, the resulting percentage of made baskets should be significantly higher than that player's overall shooting percentage. This is basically what the researchers did in the papers I linked above, and they discovered that there is no such increase -- even after a made basket, won game, or whatever, the odds of success on the following try were around the same as they would have been if they'd lost previously.

Of course, this doesn't factor in the impact of confidence itself -- that's pretty hard to quantify. But the results seem to at least suggest that the perception of being "on fire" is a result of a string of successes, rather than the other way around.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Thanks for the link! I was just going to look for it. Something that I ponder is this: does the elevated confidence level that some athletes get from a random "hot" streak actually impact their play after that random stretch is over.

In other words, can certain athletes improve peformance and "beat" chance simply by their state of mind?

That's a question that (depending on your angle) is either answered as "no, confidence actually doesn't matter" or is sidestepped. Here's where emergence and reality kind of meld: the confidence is real, but the chances don't improve. But, because you live in a reality where you did hit that shot, your brain assigns your confidence as a reason you hit it, because it loves to find causality. Causality = survival, so that's the instinct it has.

 

[BGrantFan]

That's a question that (depending on your angle) is either answered as "no, confidence actually doesn't matter" or is sidestepped. Here's where emergence and reality kind of meld: the confidence is real, but the chances don't improve. But, because you live in a reality where you did hit that shot, your brain assigns your confidence as a reason you hit it, because it loves to find causality. Causality = survival, so that's the instinct it has.

I'd like to see more study on confidence during and after a streak, though. I actually think that chance can improve based on the confidence level of a given athlete, and concentration may also factor into the conversation. Then again, maybe the statistics would prove this theory wrong over time, although it would be near impossible to capture "confidence" as any sort of scientific value in a study.

Very interesting topics in this thread. Again, using personal experience as someone who defined the word "streak shooter", when I wasn't hitting early, I wasn't hitting all game. When I was hitting early, I was hitting all game (not 100%, of course, but shots still felt good coming off the hand).

Perhaps Martell is somehow related to me?

 

[BrianFromWA]

This has devolved a bit from "team" momentum to individual, but still fascinating.
I've seen it more in golf. If I've been "feeling it", maybe the chances that my muscle memory is better after a few good shots increases the chances of a good next shot, or maybe not. But the confidence factor is undoubtedly there. Yips are a pretty good indicator, right? A poor confidence factor can trigger unconscious flaws in muscle memory, causing you to pull a putt or not follow through or something. Likewise, if I've been striping my drives, I don't worry about hitting the trees on the right side, b/c I haven't sliced all day.

 

[BGrantFan]

This has devolved a bit from "team" momentum to individual, but still fascinating.
I've seen it more in golf. If I've been "feeling it", maybe the chances that my muscle memory is better after a few good shots increases the chances of a good next shot, or maybe not. But the confidence factor is undoubtedly there. Yips are a pretty good indicator, right? A poor confidence factor can trigger unconscious flaws in muscle memory, causing you to pull a putt or not follow through or something. Likewise, if I've been striping my drives, I don't worry about hitting the trees on the right side, b/c I haven't sliced all day.

Same thing can happen when shooting a basketball, although it's less obvious. The 'yips' tend to be a feeling of tightness while shooting, almost like you're trying to shoot through you mind trying to make you miss. I often think of this when I watch Martell try to make shots after missing one or two. There is no real difference (typically) to the observer, but the athlete knows they are fighting through something.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Same thing can happen when shooting a basketball, although it's less obvious. The 'yips' tend to be a feeling of tightness while shooting, almost like you're trying to shoot through you mind trying to make you miss. I often think of this when I watch Martell try to make shots after missing one or two. There is no real difference (typically) to the observer, but the athlete knows they are fighting through something.

I think there's something there: conscious thought and muscle memory (which is always imperfect anyway) aren't friends. Maybe that's why very smart players are so rare: the frontal lobes churning away on conscious thought create a sort of fog that the lizard brain playing the "hunting simulation" game can't see through.

 

[crandc]

Not stated but implied: better players are more confident. Michael Jordan was more likely to feel confident his next shot was falling than Ruben Boumtje Boumtje. And he was right, not due to any "magic" or "psychology" but because he was, to put it mildly, a better player.

And yes, lack of confidence can screw up muscle memory, or other tasks, for that matter. Haven't we all had "those days" where several things go wrong and we start thinking EVERYTHING is going to go wrong, then we end up making mistakes we don't usually do? Because our concentration is shot, we are too busy worrying about screwing up to pay attention to what we are doing.

 

[MARIS61]

More important than momentum is the score.

We know we can steal one in Phoenix.

They know they can completely annihilate us if they want to.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I can tell I've been spending way too much time in the OT section of this forum because when I first glanced at the title of this thread I thought it said, "What role does Muhammad play...?"

I was going to say not much unless instead of a red-out we go for the full Burka-out.

No that would be pretty damn intimidating.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Not stated but implied: better players are more confident. Michael Jordan was more likely to feel confident his next shot was falling than Ruben Boumtje Boumtje. And he was right, not due to any "magic" or "psychology" but because he was, to put it mildly, a better player.

Not to get all Ayn Rand, but yeah, that's the core of it: some people are better at some tasks than others. Not types of people, but people individually.

And yes, lack of confidence can screw up muscle memory, or other tasks, for that matter. Haven't we all had "those days" where several things go wrong and we start thinking EVERYTHING is going to go wrong, then we end up making mistakes we don't usually do? Because our concentration is shot, we are too busy worrying about screwing up to pay attention to what we are doing.

Very true, even if it wasn't necessarily proven by the results of that experiment.

 

[crandc]

Not to get all Ayn Rand, but yeah, that's the core of it: some people are better at some tasks than others. Not types of people, but people individually.

Nothing to do with Ayn Rand at all. Jordan is a great basketball player but KP is a better GM. We all have different talents. Does not mean we need a society where a selfish elite rules the world, and women fall in love with rapists because of their "mastery".

Please.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Nothing to do with Ayn Rand at all. Jordan is a great basketball player but KP is a better GM. We all have different talents. Does not mean we need a society where a selfish elite rules the world, and women fall in love with rapists because of their "mastery".

Please.

I have no love whatsoever for Rand; I was legitimately trying to distance the thought of "natural mastery" from Rand in that post. I really hope you didn't take it the wrong way!

Now, go blazers!

 

[crandc]

I have no love whatsoever for Rand; I was legitimately trying to distance the thought of "natural mastery" from Rand in that post. I really hope you didn't take it the wrong way!

Now, go blazers!

Having met you, I found it hard to believe you were a Randite.

Go Blazers!
Happy Earth Day!

 

[mook]

Bad momentum can certainly have an impact on individuals and teams. The Clippers are used to losing, so even in games where they still stand a chance you'll see hunched shoulders and downward stares. They give up, so they lose. If you think you are going to lose, you are always right.

Similarly, bad momentum works on individuals. Rudy has absolutely no confidence in his shot because of a random sequence of missed shots, so it's become self-fulfilling. He's over-thinking and non-aggressive. "Hot hands" are really statistically predictable. "Ruts" are often the consequence of statistical failings that go on longer than they should because of psychological weakness.

I don't think there's anything like positive momentum, just like there isn't anything like "clutch." Guys don't magically get better at the end of games. Some simply don't choke under the pressure, so they look better compared to the ones who do.

I don't really see how there will be much negative momentum going into tonight's game. The Blazers still have a great record against the Suns over the regular season. They've got a good coaching staff that will inspire confidence with their adjustments. They've got 20k fans cheering them on. They won't be the Clippers and just give up.

 

[hasoos]

Not much. I have seen home and home swings swap the score by 40 points. Team loses away by 20. Comes home and wins by 20.