Just coach the game by laws of probability then. I actually think you’re trolling
14-7
- Thread starter zappaa
- Start date
I mean I would. This is literally how professional sports is played these days. Because the people who think like me absolutely destroyed the people who think like you.
Don't you mean "likely" lose. Otherwise, what astronomical odds are you giving me?
Lol can you imagine if this board ran a sportsbook that made its own lines? You could blindly bet on Rutgers after every loss and against Rutgers after every win and be a billionaire in like two years
Have you ever played a sport, Fluoxetine? Do you acknowledge that players sometimes get in a rhythm/get in a zone?
Yes.
To some degree, yes. But I've also seen this (this is from a random sequence of 1s and 2s from random.org):
Here are your random numbers:
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Except the chance at each of those steps is still 50%. You can't bank on a guy missing several in a row in the future, just like you can't expect the hot hand to stay hot. Willis is shooting .424 this year, and shot .400 last year. He doesn't suddenly become less of a threat on the next shot because he started hot.
Yet we still let him take more threes than he has in any college game, and paid for it.
Last edited:
Sure but that’s a completely different conversation than changing your strategy because he’s hot. I’m certainly not arguing he was LESS likely to make his next three because he has just made a bunch. In fact, I’m sure he’s slightly more likely to make the next one when he’s on a streak. It’s just that I think “slightly” is a very key word in the previous sentence.
Sorry, I don’t see how random numbers relate to a player in a rhythm/zone. Obviously, there is still randomness involved, but for player in that sort of rhythm the percentage goes way up. As a streaky shooter, I can attest to this, the difference between hoping a shot goes in and knowing it will. Read the book *Zen and the Art of Archery.*
It doesn’t actually go “way” up. Slightly? Probably. But there have been studies done on this type of thing.
for example,
“
Because any two shots from the field are rarely equal, it is much more difficult to approach the interpretation of field goal shooting data. This is something that Sandy Weil and John Huizinga, a University of Chicago economist, studied and presented a t a 2009 sports analytics conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.
They used what they call a “best in class” data set of play-by-play data for four complete seasons of NBA games. Limiting themselves to star players, they refined the data set to study serial correlation, comparing a previous field goal attempt to the next one and eliminating shots they felt would bias the sample.
Their findings suggested no evidence of shooting streaks. After making one shot, a player’s shooting percentage actually tended to drop for the next field goal attempt.
Despite this drop in performance, a player who scored tended to shoot more often, as if the player and his teammates believed him to be the team’s best scoring option. Behaving as though the hot hand existed might actually be detrimental and cost an average team about four victories over one season.
“
If he were a .300 shooter who was lighting it up early, it'd make sense to let him keep shooting. I'd gladly take 17 attempts from a sub-par shooter. But we let a guy who shoots over .400, the only real deep threat they had suited up, to get up a ton of shots.
To be clear, the way random numbers relate to it is that a lot of the story about “why” a player gets on a streak is a story retrofitted after the fact. Am I playing well because I am “in the zone” or do I feel as if I am in the zone because I am playing well. I think there is an element of both, but the former effect, while not nonexistent, is way, way overestimated.
how often have we seen baker get “hot” and then waste a possession jacking up a “heat check” contested three at the beginning of the shot clock?
Did you read this part: “Arkes said Weil and Huizinga’s research was “really interesting,” though he maintained that free throws were the best measure of the hot hand. With field goals, he said, “you don’t know if the lower likelihood of making the next shot is from the non existence of the hot hand or the higher difficult of the shot. So, it’s not comparing apples to apples.” And then, there are factors particular to each shot: fresh or weary legs, how we define “closely contested,” game situatioArkes said Weil and Huizinga’s research was “really interesting,” though he maintained that free throws were the best measure of the hot hand. With field goals, he said, “you don’t know if the lower likelihood of making the next shot is from the non existence of the hot hand or the higher difficult of the shot. So, it’s not comparing apples to apples.”n, favorite spot on the floor, what the coach just said about shooting threes, shot clock,whether or not he just banged up his knee. It’s not like odds on a roulette wheel. Good luck. I’ll spend my time elsewhere.
To be clear, no, I haven’t read that entire specific article that I linked. I remembered reading studies like this in the past and googled to find an article about them.
I do see that they find evidence that a player is more likely to make a 2nd free throw after making the first, but that, to me, seems like a different effect (there is some advantage to getting your range on the first shot and getting to take a second shot from the same place, which isn’t really the same thing as streakiness).
Again, I’m not trying to 100% deny the existence of any of these effects. I am just trying to argue that I think they are very much overestimated.
This ...they shot way over 50% from the game and we did NOTHING to take them out of their comfort zone ....