White not enough touches in 2nd half, Marble to many?

PCHawk said:
I kind of agree with your last sentence. I think the reason they are so close to the same after 3 makes is because a lot of times you are not even in the zone after 3 makes. Even the times you are in the zone after 3 makes you might rattle out your next shot. When you factor in those 2 things it would make the statistics pretty close. I don't think for a second that your odds change for your next shot every time you make one. But I do know for a fact that the odds of making your next shot on nights you're zoned in are WAY higher then your odds of making a shot on nights you are struggling with your shot.

Marble against Indiana is a good example. I don't think his odds of missing his next shot were worse then normal on that particular night because he was shooting a low percentage. He was shooting shots from all over the floor and a lot of them were barely missing. I never really got the feeling that night that he was struggling with his shot. McCabe on the other hand did have a worse chance to hit his next shot then normal. Not because of his bad percentage that night but because how ugly his shot looked and how badly he was missing them.
Click to expand...

His odds of making the next shot would be the same after 10 makes in a row, or even 100.
 




ddiction said:
His odds of making the next shot would be the same after 10 makes in a row, or even 100.
Click to expand...

Do you think someone's shot mechanic are the same every single day or that shot mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you make the shot?
 






ddiction said:
His odds of making the next shot would be the same after 10 makes in a row, or even 100.
Click to expand...

Again, if he makes 10 because of some outside factor, then his odds must be higher wi that factor than they would be without it. Otherwise, there are no outside factors at all, because they have no impact whatsoever.

If you allow gimmes inside of, say 2 feet in golf, your odds of saving a stroke are quite a bit better from inside two feet than they would be if you had to putt it out. It's the same principle here. Something is happening to make it a little easier to hit the shot (save the stroke). Therefore, as long as that something is present, your odds are better than they would be if that factor was no longer present.

For instance, a player is more likely to hit a wide open shot than he is to hit one with a guy in his face. But your argument completely ignores such variables and says those two shots are exactly the same. That's just not the case. And if that particular variable can impact the odds of making the shot, then it's only logical to believe that other variables can, too.
 


tm3308 said:
Again, if he makes 10 because of some outside factor, then his odds must be higher wi that factor than they would be without it. Otherwise, there are no outside factors at all, because they have no impact whatsoever.

If you allow gimmes inside of, say 2 feet in golf, your odds of saving a stroke are quite a bit better from inside two feet than they would be if you had to putt it out. It's the same principle here. Something is happening to make it a little easier to hit the shot (save the stroke). Therefore, as long as that something is present, your odds are better than they would be if that factor was no longer present.

For instance, a player is more likely to hit a wide open shot than he is to hit one with a guy in his face. But your argument completely ignores such variables and says those two shots are exactly the same. That's just not the case. And if that particular variable can impact the odds of making the shot, then it's only logical to believe that other variables can, too.
Click to expand...

If people felt the exact same way physically and mentally every single day then there theory would be correct but that simply is not the case.
 


Say a quarterback threw 10 consecutive completions. Would his odds be better to to throw a completion on his next pass. It depends. Say during that streak there were 2 blown coverages, 3 diving catches, and 5 checkdowns to the running back 10 feet away. If that was the case the odds of completing the next pass are no higher then normal.

Now say during that stretch the quarterback was on fire. The game has slowed down for him and he is seeing everything in slow motion. He hits all 10 guys in stride into tight windows and he saw the pass in his mind perfectly before he threw it. In this situation his odds of completing his next pass are definitely higher then normal.
 








tm3308 said:
So variables have no impact on the outcome of a shot. Got it.
Click to expand...


??? Where did you get that? Of course they do. The variable that is "making a certain number of shots in a row" just doesn't have an impact on the outcome of the shot. I don't know how a person can dispute clinical fact. You and I are obviously very different people, tm3308.
 


wundergrape said:
??? Where did you get that? Of course they do. The variable that is "making a certain number of shots in a row" just doesn't have an impact on the outcome of the shot. I don't know how a person can dispute clinical fact. You and I are obviously very different people, tm3308.
Click to expand...

"Making a certain number of shots in a row" isn't the variable. Streaks are the product of other variables, not that you've already made several in a row.

If a guy's shot is clicking mechanically and he's got a streak going, he's probably a good bet to keep hitting shots on that particular day. Not because he's already hit several shots in a row, but because his mechanics are clicking on that particular day. He has no control over when everything clicks, or when it stops. But when it does, he has a higher than usual chance of hitting his shots.

I don't get why this is so difficult for you to grasp. It always happens randomly, because if a shooter could control when everything clicks -- and for how long it stays that way -- there would be far more and longer streaks, as already stated in this thread. But he doesn't have control over that, and so it's still random -- just like the findings ddiction brought up. But it doesn't matter what the factor is; as long as it's in the equation, the shooter does have a better chance of hitting his shots.
 




I don't think anyone would disagree that a tough defense can make a shot harder to make. So why is it so hard to believe that a person's confidence level can make a difference?
 




tm3308 said:
For instance, a player is more likely to hit a wide open shot than he is to hit one with a guy in his face. But your argument completely ignores such variables and says those two shots are exactly the same. That's just not the case. And if that particular variable can impact the odds of making the shot, then it's only logical to believe that other variables can, too.
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times I've mentioned that outside factors have a huge impact on whether a shot goes in. The part that doesn't matter one bit is whether the last shot went in. So if a good shooter is getting good looks but the shots aren't falling, there is no reason for him to stop shooting assuming he's still getting good looks. And if he's made a few shots in a row, the fact that he's "feeling it" is no reason for him to start taking more contested shots than he would otherwise.
 


ddiction said:
I don't know how many times I've mentioned that outside factors have a huge impact on whether a shot goes in. The part that doesn't matter one bit is whether the last shot went in. So if a good shooter is getting good looks but the shots aren't falling, there is no reason for him to stop shooting assuming he's still getting good looks. And if he's made a few shots in a row, the fact that he's "feeling it" is no reason for him to start taking more contested shots than he would otherwise.
Click to expand...

If a guy's shot is just locked in for a night, you should look to get him the ball and let the offense flow through him more. I'm not saying he should force shots; but you should make an effort to put him in a position to score, perhaps more so than usual. Iowa did that with Gatens last year. Very few of the shots he took were forced or bad looks. They worked to put him in position to get good looks.

If a guy's shot is feeling off, he shouldn't take 14 shots. McCabe was a near 45% 3-point shooter last year. This year, he can't hit the broad side of a barn from the outside, even when he gets good looks. We shouldn't funnel the ball to him right now; there are other players who can be and have been much more effective.
 


ddiction said:
I don't know how many times I've mentioned that outside factors have a huge impact on whether a shot goes in. The part that doesn't matter one bit is whether the last shot went in. So if a good shooter is getting good looks but the shots aren't falling, there is no reason for him to stop shooting assuming he's still getting good looks. And if he's made a few shots in a row, the fact that he's "feeling it" is no reason for him to start taking more contested shots than he would otherwise.
Click to expand...

So outside factors have a huge impact but confidence has zero impact?
 


PCHawk said:
So outside factors have a huge impact but confidence has zero impact?
Click to expand...

Not enough to be measurable, apparently. If it did, it would result in more streaks than show up randomly, as presumably confidence is higher during a streak and lower during a slump.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page






Top