How could you think making a putt in golf would be any different then making a 3 in basketball? Streaks occur in numbers because it would be a statistical improbability for them not to. Streaks occur in sports because of confidence. Your original premise that odds are not greater to make a shot when you're "feeling it" then they are when you're cold is wrong and anyone who has ever been remotely decent in any sport would agree.
White not enough touches in 2nd half, Marble to many?
- Thread starter HaydenHawk56
- Start date
tm3308
Well-Known Member
I think for the purposes of this discussion, actual streaks aren't what you should look at. When a guy has the hot hand, performances like what Gatens put on are much more common. Going 7-10 in back to back games is far more common than hitting 7 straight. Doesn't mean he wasn't on a hot streak.
ddiction
Well-Known Member
You can't go 7-10 without hitting a few in a row.
ddiction
Well-Known Member
My point is simple, if making a shot increases your odds of making the next shot (in basketball), mathematically there would HAVE to be more instances of consecutive makes and consecutive misses in real life, on average, than a random scattering of the same number or makes and misses. Statistics have shown that this is not the case. You can talk about experience and confidence and who's played basketball at what level until you're blue in the face, but answer me this: if the odds were greater that you'd make the next shot if you made the last one, why is it that there are no fewer streaks in a random scattering of makes and misses than in the order that those shots actually happened?
wundergrape
Well-Known Member
First of all, ddiction is right. Streaks do not exist statistically.
However, the dismissal of "streaks" as they affect a given outcome is flawed. What is real, and meaningful, is the psychological manifestation that a "streak" has on a person and the people around him. Even if a streak is anomalous, it creates a "belief" factor in humans - especially when it comes at important times - that I suspect is real and statistically valid. Senses become heightened, trust develops among constituent parts, and people begin to visualize and expect a certain outcome...winning.
However, the dismissal of "streaks" as they affect a given outcome is flawed. What is real, and meaningful, is the psychological manifestation that a "streak" has on a person and the people around him. Even if a streak is anomalous, it creates a "belief" factor in humans - especially when it comes at important times - that I suspect is real and statistically valid. Senses become heightened, trust develops among constituent parts, and people begin to visualize and expect a certain outcome...winning.
Making one shot doesn't always increase your chances of making the next one. Sometimes you can bank one in, shoot a line drive, or shoot one with no rotation and it can still go in. Those shots don't give you confidence to make your next one. Gatens didn't make 12 in a row because of random luck, he was in the zone. He could have just as easily rattled out his 6th shot and ended up with a streak of 5 and a streak of 6. That doesn't mean the odds weren't considerably higher of him making those shots then normal.
ddiction
Well-Known Member
Gatens made 12 in a row because he is an excellent shooter who also happened to be extremely lucky during that stretch.
ddiction
Well-Known Member
I agree 100% and in no way discount the significant effect that a streak has on numerous facets of the game. My only contention is that it doesn't make your next shot more likely to go in.
There is a gambling game that a shooter could play with you that would make you go broke. Here are the rules.
1. He shoots about a thousand shots to figure out his percentage.
2. You give the shooter odds based on his percentage. If he happened to be a 50% shooter it would be ever money bets.
3. The shooter gets to decide which shots he wants to bet on. He can shoot shots all day one day and not bet on any shots. The next day he might place bets on almost all his shots. He just has to let you know before he shoots the shot.
4. The shooter gets to decide how much money to place on his shots. It would have to be a small enough amount to not make him nervous because that would change things.
In your mind this would be an even money game and whoever won did so because they were lucky. In my mind the shooter would eventually break you every time because the person shooting the ball always knows when he's in a rhythm.
wundergrape
Well-Known Member
It does, actually.
That was kinda a double negative. Him missing one shot in the middle of his streak doesn't mean his odds are lower to make the next 6 then they would have been had he made that one. His odds are still higher then his overall shooting percentage would suggest.
wundergrape
Well-Known Member
I know it was a double negative, and I know what I wrote. You are right, "Him missing one shot in the middle of his streak doesn't mean his odds are lower to make the next 6 then they would have been had he made that one." But, conversely, you are wrong here: "His odds are still higher then his overall shooting percentage would suggest."
The odds of him making a shot in the middle of his streak are the same as they would be at any other time. Don't believe ddiction? Here's the proof, courtesy of Cognitive Psychology Journal and Stanford and Cornell Universities.
Is that written by people who have never played a sport in their lives? One make or one miss doesn't bring you in and out of "the zone" so one shot doesn't always effect the odds of making the next shot. Sometimes it does tho. Gatens has about a 40% shot to make any given shot. I would say during his 12 make streak his odds of making each individual shot was closer to 70%. He!! I was never a lights out shooter and I've had some days where I pretty much knew my next shot was falling.
wundergrape
Well-Known Member
Wow. I don't know what to say.
Previous shots have very little to do with making the next shot. Sometimes previous shots affect your confidence as a shooter and that can help or hinder your shot. Shooting has multiple variables and shooting percentage is not one of them. Shooting percentage is just a number that tells you how consistently you have made shots in the past. If it mattered then you would see people's percentage jump up or down each yr except by small amounts (ie 2 or 3 percentage pts).
A shot going in is all about the variables within the shot. The defense, the rotation of the ball, the shot trajectory, the lift of the shooter, the spring of the rim or backboard, etc. The better you navigate the physics of the shot then you make the shot. Since there are 2 possible outcomes to every shot (make or miss) the odds are actually 50/50. But navigating the variables increases or decreases the chances.
Shooting percentage only tells you the past it can help you predict the future but that is it. It tells you the likelihood that someone might make multiple shots in a row but it has no bearing on it.
There are shooters that tend to be more prevalent to streaks. There are some guys that seem to hit consistently hit 3 out of 10 shots day in and day out. Then there are guys who seem to consistently go 1 for 10 and follow it up with a 5 for 10 night. Both are shooting the same percentage but that percentage isn't. Very telltale of what will happen as it is based off past performance and these 2 would probably be looked at differently because of how they got to the 30%.
A shot going in is all about the variables within the shot. The defense, the rotation of the ball, the shot trajectory, the lift of the shooter, the spring of the rim or backboard, etc. The better you navigate the physics of the shot then you make the shot. Since there are 2 possible outcomes to every shot (make or miss) the odds are actually 50/50. But navigating the variables increases or decreases the chances.
Shooting percentage only tells you the past it can help you predict the future but that is it. It tells you the likelihood that someone might make multiple shots in a row but it has no bearing on it.
There are shooters that tend to be more prevalent to streaks. There are some guys that seem to hit consistently hit 3 out of 10 shots day in and day out. Then there are guys who seem to consistently go 1 for 10 and follow it up with a 5 for 10 night. Both are shooting the same percentage but that percentage isn't. Very telltale of what will happen as it is based off past performance and these 2 would probably be looked at differently because of how they got to the 30%.
wundergrape
Well-Known Member
The only trial you could do is have a shooter tell you when he is feeling confident then see hoe he does on his following shots.
wundergrape
Well-Known Member
Did you even read the research? Because it addresses exactly what you're suggesting is a joker in the deck. Players consistently overestimated their ability to hit shots when they had hit more than two in a row, but the true probability that they would make the shot never changed. This has been proven - from NBA players to college to amateurs. I don't know how you could still be arguing about this. Just read the abstract (the first paragraph) if you want your answer.
