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

Discussion in 'Portland Trail Blazers' started by Darkwebs, Jan 13, 2019.

?

Which option would be better for the Blazers?

Poll closed Jan 20, 2019.
  1. Justin Jackson + Harry Giles

    26.2%
  2. Zach Collins

    73.8%
  1. blazerboy30

    blazerboy30 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,465
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'm not claiming you don't get a certain feeling or mental state. I'm telling you that it is due to the previous shots and what has already happened, but it provides no predictive value about upcoming shots.

    You don't understand the statistics behind it, and that's ok. World renowned behavioral economists have shown that you're wrong.
     
  2. TBpup

    TBpup Writing Team

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    34,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Investment Management / Financial Planner
    Location:
    Lake Oswego
    Why do I get the feeling that whomever came up with the data/science behind there being no 'zone', never played the sport and certainly was never in one. I've seen so many instances of players doing things that are so outside of their norm or even known ability but for that one stretch, they were in a different place. Their confidence got to be where form, balance or defense didn't matter and shots were going in they had never even practice.

    Don't even care what the data says. I've seen too many examples.
     
    Darkwebs, hoopsjock and BonesJones like this.
  3. BonesJones

    BonesJones https://www.youtube.com/c/blazersuprise

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    44,368
    Likes Received:
    38,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    @blazerboy30 I just started reading your "research paper" and it's beyond dumb... Comparing an action that someone has control over (Making a shot) compared to an action that someone has no control over (flipping heads or tails) is ridiculous. Also, making two shots can get a player in the zone mentally where he makes the following shot because of it, or it might not get him in the zone and he'll miss his next shot. Using the variation in these outcomes to try to disprove that players "get in the zone" and perform better because of it is very scientifically flawed.

    Getting in the zone is rare. You can't disprove it by using general stats based on a general timeline. There often is little to no correlation between amount of makes and "getting in the zone", yet the paper tries to establish correlation on a linear basic. They even admit this, but then they try to account for it by comparing the frequency of good "four shot sequences" with chance, with no stated adjustment for the fact that these hot stretches correlates with a rise in shooting percentage. Using a shooting percentage that rises with hot stretches to try to determine the expected frequency of these hot sequences is scientifically flawed.

    This is a perfect example of people who haven't played basketball at a high enough level trying to use numbers to try to simplify something that they know nothing about. There's so many variables that you cannot account for in a statistical analysis of "streak shooting". If someone hits 3 shots in a row, the other team is very likely to take away that players next shot or contest it much more heavily.

    Basically, this research paper is absolute BS.
     
    Darkwebs, hoopsjock and GrandpaBlaze like this.
  4. BonesJones

    BonesJones https://www.youtube.com/c/blazersuprise

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    44,368
    Likes Received:
    38,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    The basic premise of it is flawed. The basic analysis is flawed. It's flawed as hell.
     
    hoopsjock and GrandpaBlaze like this.
  5. oldmangrouch

    oldmangrouch persona non grata

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    12,402
    Likes Received:
    6,323
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If we were talking about random events, nobody would argue with that. What happens on the court is not purely random and the patterns are real.
     
  6. BonesJones

    BonesJones https://www.youtube.com/c/blazersuprise

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    44,368
    Likes Received:
    38,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Hahahahaha. World renowned psychologists (a study that is much more applicable to basketball than behavioral economics) have shown your wrong. You seem like the type of person to tell psychologists what they're saying is wrong if they can't prove it with statistics, and will apply some insanely basic and flawed statistical analysis to try to prove so.

    But yeah, tell me how I've never been in the zone and how I'm mistaken... Some people man.
     
    hoopsjock likes this.
  7. TorturedBlazerFan

    TorturedBlazerFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    19,824
    Likes Received:
    23,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Baby Daddy
    Location:
    Chasing my kids
    I feel like simple science is much better than all the statistical analysis in this case. Whats some things we know about Humans. Well when they’re in atheletic events they tend to have more adrenaline in their blood. Adrenaline at its apex does in fact make them do things they wouldnt normally do and we know that adrenaline and the extra blood flow helps the brain and concentration. The “zone” so to speak biologically is the apex of the adrenaline rush. It rarely lasts for very long, but in finely tuned athletes it will more than likely last for longer than normal people who get like 15-20 seconds out of it.

    Anyone who’s ever had even a decent work out schedule has felt at least in a small way the “athelete adreneline” without the rush. Where youre going but not in over drive.

    The statistics do almost always bear themselves out but the problem with “large samples of data” is that they tend to do a bad job on the smaller subsets. Like a guy could make 4-5 shots maybe the last one or two were that adrenaline spike, but he will crash from that eventually. the statistics will come back down. Not every time you’re “hot” are you in that zone, but certainly there are times where you are.
     
    hoopsjock and TBpup like this.
  8. DUB

    DUB Da, da da, da dah!

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,635
    Likes Received:
    5,265
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Joe Ingles' hometown
    Absolutely classic quote from Nurk. :lol:

    For those of you who block twitter:

     
  9. blazerboy30

    blazerboy30 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,465
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
  10. TorturedBlazerFan

    TorturedBlazerFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    19,824
    Likes Received:
    23,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Baby Daddy
    Location:
    Chasing my kids
    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 -.
     
    Darkwebs and hoopsjock like this.
  11. blazerboy30

    blazerboy30 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,465
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
  12. GrandpaBlaze

    GrandpaBlaze Predictions Game Master

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7,674
    Likes Received:
    8,756
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Boise, ID
    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
     
  13. TorturedBlazerFan

    TorturedBlazerFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2018
    Messages:
    19,824
    Likes Received:
    23,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Baby Daddy
    Location:
    Chasing my kids
    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.
     
    hoopsjock likes this.
  14. Scalma

    Scalma Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    23,631
    Likes Received:
    34,978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There definitely is a thing called the zone and if you reject the idea, you’re a moron sorry not sorry.
     
    BonesJones and illmatic99 like this.
  15. Scalma

    Scalma Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    23,631
    Likes Received:
    34,978
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. TBpup

    TBpup Writing Team

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    34,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Investment Management / Financial Planner
    Location:
    Lake Oswego
    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.
     
  17. KingSpeed

    KingSpeed Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    60,907
    Likes Received:
    21,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    actor
    Location:
    New York
    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.
     
  18. BonesJones

    BonesJones https://www.youtube.com/c/blazersuprise

    Joined:
    May 7, 2015
    Messages:
    44,368
    Likes Received:
    38,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    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.
     
  19. kjironman1

    kjironman1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2014
    Messages:
    18,866
    Likes Received:
    19,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    hoopsjock, BonesJones and TBpup like this.
  20. blue9

    blue9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Messages:
    10,729
    Likes Received:
    7,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    tester551 likes this.

Share This Page