Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Well, admittedly the name Amos Tversky didn't ring a bell, so I ...

Expand Messages
  • dlirag@hotmail.com
    ... didn t ... Maybe ... attempted ... score. ... not ... paper, ... and found ... They found statistical evidence of a cold streak?
    Message 1 of 27 , Jan 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
      <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Mike G" <msg_53@h...>
      > To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 2:50 PM
      > Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Well, admittedly the name Amos Tversky
      didn't
      > ring a bell, so I ...

      > > Perhaps a player can experience a Very Hot Hand, and pour in 15
      > > points in a quarter, and end up shooting 10-22 for the game.
      Maybe
      > > he attracted defensive adjustments, or took it too far and
      attempted
      > > wild shots. "Hot" may not completely come through in the box
      score.
      > >
      > > DeanO flatly stated that Mr. Tversky had shown the Hot Hand does
      not
      > > exist. Then he described his own personal experience with it. I
      > > think maybe there's a contradiction.
      > >
      >
      > I can't believe Tversky would ever say that. In the Gilovich et al.
      paper,
      > he and his colleagues went to some lengths to detect a hot hand,
      and found
      > nothing (well, they found one cold hand).

      They found statistical evidence of a cold streak?
    • Stephen Greenwell
      They found statistical evidence of a cold streak? There s a preponderence of evidence that the other end of the spectrum is attainable. See in baseball: Rich
      Message 2 of 27 , Jan 6, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        They found statistical evidence of a cold streak?

        There's a preponderence of evidence that the other end of the spectrum is attainable.  See in baseball: Rich Ankiel, Steve Sax, Chuck Knoblauch.  In basketball, Clifford Robinson has been shown to be a vastly inferior player in the postseason as opposed to the regular season.  The same goes for Damon Stoudamire; the proof is in Hollinger's Pro Basketball Prospectus.

        Steve Greenwell
      • Mike G
        ... spectrum is attainable. Unless I m missing something, a streak is a streak. Either you do or don t accept that human beings have more variability than
        Message 3 of 27 , Jan 6, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Greenwell
          <sgre6768@p...> wrote:
          > > They found statistical evidence of a cold streak?

          > There's a preponderence of evidence that the other end of the
          spectrum is attainable.

          Unless I'm missing something, a streak is a streak. Either you do
          or don't accept that human beings have more variability than tossed
          coins and dice.

          Accepting the validity of a cold streak implies that there is such
          variability. And since "cold" has to be relative to some average,
          it implies other "hotter-than-average" periods.


          >.., Clifford Robinson has been shown to be a vastly inferior player
          in the postseason as opposed to the regular season. The same goes
          for Damon Stoudamire; the proof is in Hollinger's Pro Basketball
          Prospectus.

          Stoudamire actually beat the rap (though briefly) last season; while
          Cliff is still Cliff.

          Meanwhile, Reggie Miller and Robert Horry both stunk in last year's
          postseason, thus losing their "perennial overachiever" status.

          You can "prove" the past, but not the future.
        • Mikey Stewart
          Heh. Robert Horry s reputation as a great playoff performer, even prior to last year, has been ridiculously overblown. His career playoff numbers aren t any
          Message 4 of 27 , Jan 6, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Heh. Robert Horry's reputation as a great playoff performer, even prior
            to last year, has been ridiculously overblown. His career playoff numbers
            aren't any better than his modest regular season numbers. When you get
            lucky at the ends of a few close games in the playoffs, people tend to
            overrated you considerably. Hey, he's a "winner", right?


            On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Mike G wrote:

            > --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Greenwell
            > <sgre6768@p...> wrote:
            > > > They found statistical evidence of a cold streak?
            >
            > > There's a preponderence of evidence that the other end of the
            > spectrum is attainable.
            >
            > Unless I'm missing something, a streak is a streak.  Either you do
            > or don't accept that human beings have more variability than tossed
            > coins and dice.
            >
            > Accepting the validity of a cold streak implies that there is such
            > variability.  And since "cold" has to be relative to some average,
            > it implies other "hotter-than-average" periods.
            >
            >
            > >.., Clifford Robinson has been shown to be a vastly inferior
            > player
            > in the postseason as opposed to the regular season.  The same goes
            > for Damon Stoudamire; the proof is in Hollinger's Pro Basketball
            > Prospectus.
            >
            > Stoudamire actually beat the rap (though briefly) last season;
            > while
            > Cliff is still Cliff.
            >
            > Meanwhile, Reggie Miller and Robert Horry both stunk in last year's
            > postseason, thus losing their "perennial overachiever" status.
            >
            > You can "prove" the past, but not the future.
            >
            >
            >
            > __________________________________________________________________________
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/APBR_analysis/
            >  
            > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >  
            > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            > Service.
            >
            >
          • Mike G
            ... prior ... numbers ... you get ... tend to ... I don t know what s been blown or overblown. Horry has never been more than a decent role player, but his
            Message 5 of 27 , Jan 6, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, Mikey Stewart <mlstewar@f...>
              wrote:
              > Heh. Robert Horry's reputation as a great playoff performer, even
              prior
              > to last year, has been ridiculously overblown. His career playoff
              numbers
              > aren't any better than his modest regular season numbers. When
              you get
              > lucky at the ends of a few close games in the playoffs, people
              tend to
              > overrated you considerably. Hey, he's a "winner", right?

              I don't know what's been blown or overblown. Horry has never been
              more than a decent role player, but his postseason play has in fact
              been significantly more substantial than his regular-season play.

              In 165 playoff games (totalling 5255 minutes), his per-minute
              production and efficiency are all better than his norm:

              Per-36, pace-adjusted:

              R. Horry eff% Sco. Reb Ast Stl (T.O) Blk - total
              Reg Seas .519 10.1 6.9 3.2 1.5 (1.9) 1.3 - 22.9
              Playoffs .540 11.0 7.4 3.3 1.6 (1.5) 1.1 - 24.5


              Though modest, his across-the-board improvements are noticeable; and
              they occurred every year except '97 (played only the last 22 G with
              LA, and the playoffs); and last year.

              Since the typical player produces only about 94% of his norm, in
              playoffs, Horry's improvement of 6% is even more outstanding -- 12%
              above expectations.

              In 5 Finals appearances, Horry has outpaced the typical player's 92%
              production rate, every time.
            • Stephen Greenwell
              ... statistical evidence of a cold streak? ... spectrum is attainable. Unless I m missing something, a streak is a streak. Either you do or don t accept that
              Message 6 of 27 , Jan 6, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                > > They found statistical evidence of a cold streak?

                > There's a preponderence of evidence that the other end of the
                spectrum is attainable.

                Unless I'm missing something, a streak is a streak.  Either you do
                or don't accept that human beings have more variability than tossed
                coins and dice.

                Accepting the validity of a cold streak implies that there is such
                variability.  And since "cold" has to be relative to some average,
                it implies other "hotter-than-average" periods.

                The existence of one side of the spectrum (mental breakdowns and disorders which lead to vastly reduced performance) does not lead to proof of the other side.  Of course, human beings have more variability than tossed coins.  However, this doesn't mean that the magical clutch ability exists.  I still haven't seen anything that would put "hot streaks" or "clutch ability" of vastly significant size past the reasoning of small sample size or statistical uneveness (blah brain fart on that word). 

                You can "prove" the past, but not the future.

                If I could prove the future, I wouldn't be here :P

                Steve Greenwell
              • igor eduardo küpfer
                ... From: To: Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:22 AM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Well, admittedly the
                Message 7 of 27 , Jan 6, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: <dlirag@...>
                  To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 4:22 AM
                  Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Well, admittedly the name Amos Tversky didn't
                  ring a bell, so I ...


                  >--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
                  ><igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
                  >>

                  <snip>

                  >>
                  >>I can't believe Tversky would ever say that. In the Gilovich et al. paper,
                  >>he and his colleagues went to some lengths to detect a hot hand, and found
                  >>nothing (well, they found one cold hand).

                  >They found statistical evidence of a cold streak?

                  Well, the found one statistically significant instance of a cold streaky
                  players: Darryl Dawkins's 80-81 season. Here, I'll reproduce the Table 1
                  from Gilovich et al.:

                  Probability of Making a Shot Conditioned on the Outcome of Previous Shots
                  for Nine Members of the Philadelphia 76ers

                  P(hit| P(hit| P(hit| P(hit| P(hit| P(hit| Serial
                  Player 3 miss) 2 miss) 1 miss) P(hit) 1 hit) 2 hits) 3 hits) correl.
                  r
                  Richardson .50 .47 .56 .50 .49 .50 .48 -.020
                  Earving .52 .51 .51 .52 .53 .52 .48 .016
                  Hollins .50 .49 .46 .46 .46 .46 .32 -.004
                  Cheeks .77 .60 .60 .56 .55 .54 .59 -.038
                  Jones .50 .48 .47 .47 .45 .43 .27 -.016
                  Toney .52 .53 .51 .46 .43 .40 .34 -.083
                  Jones .61 .58 .58 .54 .53 .47 .53 -.049
                  Mix .70 .56 .52 .52 .51 .48 .36 -.015
                  Dawkins .88 .73 .71 .62 .57 .58 .51 -.142**

                  Wt means .56 .53 .54 .52 .51 .50 .46 -.039

                  * P < .05
                  ** P < .01

                  The column headers represent each player's FG% in the specified situations;
                  after 3 missed shots, after two misses, etc. Notice that none of the players
                  have a positive r -- showing that these players tended to shoot _worse_
                  after making shots, and better after missing shots, the opposite of the
                  hot-hand theory. Of course, none of those correlations were statistically
                  significant, except for Dawkins.

                  Since I'm at it, I'll reproduce table 2, which was a Runs Test on the same
                  data.

                  Runs Test-Philadelphia 76ers
                  Expected
                  Players Hits Misses Number of runs number of runs Z

                  Clint Richardson 124 124 128 125.0 -0.38
                  Julius Erving 459 425 431 442.4 0.76
                  Lionel Hollins 194 225 203 209.4 0.62
                  Maurice Cheeks 189 150 172 168.3 -0.41
                  Caldwell Jones 129 143 134 136.6 0.32
                  Andrew Toney 208 243 245 225.1 -1.88
                  Bobby Jones 233 200 227 216.2 -1.04
                  Steve Mix 181 170 176 176.3 0.04
                  Daryl Dawkins 250 153 220 190.8 -3.09**

                  M = 218.6 203.7 215.1 210.0 -0.56

                  * p < .05.
                  ** p < .01.

                  ed
                • Mike G
                  ... wrote: ? ... 3ms 2ms 1ms all 1md 2md 3md .88 .73 .71 .62 .57 .58 .51 -.142** Ed,
                  Message 8 of 27 , Jan 8, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
                    <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
                    ?
                    >
                    > ...found one statistically significant instance of a cold streaky
                    > players: Darryl Dawkins's 80-81 season....> from Gilovich et al.:
                    >
                    > Probability of Making a Shot Conditioned on the Outcome of
                    >Previous Shots

                    >Dawkins
                    3ms 2ms 1ms all 1md 2md 3md
                    .88 .73 .71 .62 .57 .58 .51 -.142**

                    Ed, I've inserted "column headers" over Dawkins' numbers. I hope I
                    got them right.

                    This situation seemed mighty curious to me. Why did Darryl shoot
                    almost 90% after 3 missed shots?

                    My source shows that he averaged just over 9 FGA per game, in '81.

                    9 FGA is a rather finite number; it's also hard to hit 62% of 9
                    shots.

                    Let's suppose Darryl's average game is 8 FGA, with 5 made (.625
                    shooting). That leaves 3 misses per game.

                    After 1 made shot, he's 4-7 (.571) for the remainder of the sample,
                    for this game.

                    After 1 missed shot, he's 5-7 (.714).

                    These numbers are startlingly close to the above "revelations" about
                    his inverted hot hand.

                    Consider a game in which the guy is 2-3. After his miss, there is
                    0% chance of a miss. After a hit, the chances are 50%.

                    Dawkins was a high-%, low-volume shooter. As such, he serves the
                    purpose of refuting the "hot hand"; and then he serves to spoil the
                    party.


                    If you evaluate the 3-point-shootout charts (subtracting the miss/
                    make from the sample totals), you might find a similar self-
                    contradiction. The samples are bigger, but as expected, the
                    conclusions are less dramatic.



                    > The column headers represent each player's FG% in the specified
                    situations;
                    > after 3 missed shots, after two misses, etc. Notice that none of
                    the players
                    > have a positive r -- showing that these players tended to shoot
                    _worse_
                    > after making shots, and better after missing shots, the opposite
                    of the
                    > hot-hand theory. Of course, none of those correlations were
                    statistically
                    > significant, except for Dawkins.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.