|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
You "sound" like you think you can "predict" when a 3's shooter is or isn't going on a streak, based on the way you equate math. IF so, that's horse squeeze.
If a Duke 3 guy, say Singler, goes 13-15 last night, it's over for Villanova. I do not know what he did last night, but I DO know Duke is going home.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
If a Duke 3 guy, say Singler, goes 13-15 last night, it's over for Villanova. I do not know what he did last night, but I DO know Duke is going home.
Of course that's true....that has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.
Quote:
You "sound" like you think you can "predict" when a 3's shooter is or isn't going on a streak, based on the way you equate math. IF so, that's horse squeeze.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this....my point is that you can't predict anything, because there is no streak.... The fact that a 3point shooter (or any other shooter), has made his last three shots, does not influence the probability that he makes his next shot. There's no streak to speak of.
There was actually a study a couple years back...where they looked at the three point percentage of players on the next 3 pt attempt after they had made three in a row. The player actually shoots at slightly less than their average percentage. The reason for this they found, was that the player was convinced that they were hot, and started to take goofier shots (shooting while guarded, or shooting 28' 3Pters etc.)
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,333
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,333 |
Dude i'm not telling you how a streak happens..i'm telling you that IT happens. Just like you said "you can't predicit anything".
If you are telling me there is no such thing as a streak then fine. call it what you want. a slup a bad streak a good streak. It happens. If he has one of thoes 3 out of 10 nights on a night it matters the most then it really doesn't matter if he can on avg shoot 90%
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Dude i'm not telling you how a streak happens..i'm telling you that IT happens. Just like you said "you can't predicit anything".
If you are telling me there is no such thing as a streak then fine. call it what you want. a slup a bad streak a good streak. It happens. If he has one of thoes 3 out of 10 nights on a night it matters the most then it really doesn't matter if he can on avg shoot 90%
It's not about what we call it...I'm telling you that it actually doesn't happen.
Now, if what you're saying is that "Mo went 3-20 and thus he had a bad night". That's all well and good.
The problem is that people try to say, "Mo went 3-19 today, so he shouldn't take the final 3". And that's emphatically not correct. The odds that he makes this final shot are still around 40%, regardless of how his day has gone so far.
This is obviously most true for unguarded 3PTers (because there's no defensive matchup to consider, and the defensive scheme doesn't matter). Sometimes a guy has a tough matchup, and then things DO change.
It's not that players always have their average night, it's that the deviations that they have from average, are always statistical, and they have no relevance to predicting the players future performance.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
To Add On:
The problem comes about when people make bad decisions, because they think they are seeing patterns when there are none.
For instance, let's say you have a .270 hitter and a .250 hitter and you need to pinch hit in a key situation, neglecting other factors (lefty/righty matchup, defensive substitutions, etc.) you should always pick the .270 hitter, and it doesn't matter if he's currently on a 2 for 40 streak.
Turns out that a .250 hitter has about a 2.5% chance of going 1-20 in their next 20 at bats, while being a .250 hitter the entire time. It's not that they suddenly became worse, it's just how the odds fell.
However, people make miscalculations like this all the time, because they become convinced that there is a pattern. It's what causes people to lose money playing casino games, the stock market etc. It's a lot bigger than just sports.
~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 03/27/09 09:19 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
What you have to realise, is that people aren't matmatical equations you can predict. Sometimes a baseball player will just be seeing the ball better, or a basketball player's form will be better. Your stats don't account for how well a player is doing at that moment. Players are going to have games where they struggled. And in a game where they are struggling, they are much less likley to make a 3 because something with their shot just isn't right. Your statistics fail to account for the facts that we aren't numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
What you have to realise, is that people aren't matmatical equations you can predict. Sometimes a baseball player will just be seeing the ball better, or a basketball player's form will be better. Your stats don't account for how well a player is doing at that moment. Players are going to have games where they struggled. And in a game where they are struggling, they are much less likley to make a 3 because something with their shot just isn't right. Your statistics fail to account for the facts that we aren't numbers.
No...you have the method wrong, the statistics aren't accounting for the methods, they test whether any methods are possible, or whether the effect perfectly matches the statistics prediction. To say that a player is a ,300 hitter doesn't mean that he will go 3-10 at every opportunity. It means that he will go 2-10 sometimes, and 1-10 sometimes, and 4-10 sometimes etc. etc. and using binomial coefficients, you can determine how often each will happen.
Now, if something else were true, for instance, if on odd number weeks he sees the ball better than on even number weeks, then you wouldn't see the above pattern. You'd see a very different pattern. He'd become a .300 hitter who has a lot of 5-10 periods and a lot of 1-10 periods, but relatively few 3-10 periods compared to what you would statistically expect. And you, being a good mathematician, would note that the pattern cannot be explained by a binomial distribution given his overall success ratio. Then you would start to look for alternate explanations, (seeing better during day games, or on alternate weeks, or against left handers) that would allow binomial distributions to then correctly explain the divided data, since you know statistics must be there at the end.
Now some things are known to create statistically significant changes in a players batting average, most famous is the righty lefty matchup, which is tested over tens of thousands of at bats. As i said before, statistics can't predict that a lefty/righty matchup would matter, but it can say that a righty/lefty matchup mattering is consistent with the data.
The end result of all the statistical analysis, according to Bill James and others who have done this for decades, is that people don't get on hot cold streaks on the time frames of days to weeks. If they did, we would expect to find many more 20-40 and 5-40 periods than we observe, and so statistics can rule out any hot/cold streaks in players batting averages.
~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 03/27/09 09:45 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,333
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,333 |
Quote:
This is obviously most true for unguarded 3PTers (because there's no defensive matchup to consider, and the defensive scheme doesn't matter). Sometimes a guy has a tough matchup, and then things DO change.
A basketball game isn't a math class.
There is a reason they call it a "streak". When there is an outside factor that is affecting the player, it will cause him to react better or worse than his avg. As long as that factor is there he will not shoot "avg" that is as technical as i can be withought sounding like a math geek.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,281
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,281 |
Quote:
Players are going to have games where they struggled. And in a game where they are struggling, they are much less likley to make a 3 because something with their shot just isn't right
I see what you are tryin to say deepthreat, but this statement is way off...
I heart winning
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
There is a reason they call it a "streak". When there is an outside factor that is affecting the player, it will cause him to react better or worse than his avg. As long as that factor is there he will not shoot "avg" that is as technical as i can be withought sounding like a math geek.
No...the reason they call it a streak, is that people look for patterns and believe that something is affecting the player, when really it's just statistics, and there's no outside influence whatsoever. It turns out that people's intuitive sense of statistics is amazingly poor, and even those of us who work with them all the time, are often pushed into believing things are true when they really aren't.
I came up with an example that may make the processing of determining whether players become hot easier to explain.
Assume Mo Williams is a 40% 3PT shooter, and assume that he is always a 40% 3PT shooter, and this doesn't change game to game. Assume he attempts 10 3's every game. Statistically we shold get the following results:
He goes 0-10:::0.60% of games
1-10::::4.03% of games
2-10:::: 12.09% of games
3-10:::::21.50% of games
4-10:::::25.08% of games
5-10:::::20.07% of games
6-10:::::11.15% of games
7-10:::::4.25% of games
8-10:::::1.06% of games
9-10:::::0.16% of games
10-10::::0.01% of games
Now, assume that instead Mo Williams has hot and cold games. For simplicity, assume that in half of his games he is a 60% 3PT shooter, and in half of his games he is a 20% 3PT shooter (note this still makes him a 40% 3PT shooter overall), we would then expect to see
0-10:::::: 5.37% of games
1-10::::::13.50% of games
2-10::::::15.63% of games
3-10::::::12.19% of games
4-10::::::9.98% of games
5-10::::::11.36% of games
6-10:::::: 12.82% of games
7-10::::::10.79% of games
8-10::::::6.05% of games
9-10:::::2.01% of games
10-10::::::0.30% of games
Note that these are very different percentages. Going through a large number of Mo Williams's games, We can determine whether he gets hot or cold or not. And the result, from tens of thousands of games by thousands of 3PT shooters, is that they emphatically don't have hot or cold games.
Now statistically, the results are never quite as clear cut. Nowadays the odds that 3PT shooters have 60% games and 20% games is ruled out to better than 1 in a million for sure. However, what if he only shoots 42% in his hot games, and 38% in his cold games? That might be much harder to rule out, although it could be done just as well, given a large enough number of games to go through.
Also note, this doesn't say why he doesn't have hot games, or whether he can see better etc. etc. It simply looks at the results, and finds that they match the statistics where there are absolutely no hot games.We can rule out scenarios where he has overwhelmingly hot and cold games to very high levels of accuracy.
Hope this clarifies things,
~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 03/27/09 11:09 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,281
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,281 |
Lyukdea,
Are you familiar with the Houston Rockets GM Darrly Morey? If not, you would probably like him...
He is an MIT grad, and pretty much a numbers guru....
I heart winning
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Lyukdea,
Are you familiar with the Houston Rockets GM Darrly Morey? If not, you would probably like him...
He is an MIT grad, and pretty much a numbers guru....
Yeah, actually one of my best friends from college is a basketball statistics guy who spent a good amount of last year working on a basketball statistics program to scan through thousands of games in order to answer a bunch of statistical problems in basketball. He was going to have an internship position with the houston rockets statistics department this year....
but then he got a non-internship job offer from microsoft, and you don't turn those down.
~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 03/27/09 11:20 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
I disagree. You have two 50% three point shooters on your team. One is 8/10 and the other is 1/10. Who do you want taking the game winning shot? The 8/10 guy because his shot is right on this day and the other guy's is off.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
I disagree. You have two 50% three point shooters on your team. One is 8/10 and the other is 1/10. Who do you want taking the game winning shot? The 8/10 guy because his shot is right on this day and the other guy's is off.
I mean, that's what everybody's intuition says (mine included), but it's actually not true. They both will hit the shot 50% of the time,
just like a coin that's flipped heads 10 times in a row.... will still be tails next time 50% of the time.
~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 03/27/09 11:32 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
So, you're saying that if the struggling player has a broken leg, there's still a 50% chance he'll make the shot? No way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
So, you're saying that if the struggling player has a broken leg, there's still a 50% chance he'll make the shot? No way.
Obviously that's not true....it's true as long as the player is still a 50% 3PT shooter,
and results over tens of thousands of games have shown that even players who have had 1 for 10 nights, are still 50% 3PT shooters, as long as that is what they are over the long hall
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,333
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,333 |
Thats all great and stuff....
But my original argument was that a player shooting closer from the basket has a better chance of being more consistant. that is..it's a high % shot. so i rather have a inside game over couple of players who can shoot from outside. Don't get me wrong that isn't to say i don't want both..because that would be ideal. Your team would be more complete. But if i had to pick one over the other i would go with the inside game jus cuz it's more consistant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
It's not true because the broken leg is affecting his shot, correct? Sometimes your form is just off, and that'll affect your shot just like a broken leg would.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,333
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,333 |
He is saying under ideal conditions...but he doesn't understand that it's not a lab and you can't just ignore all the variables.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
It's not true because the broken leg is affecting his shot, correct? Sometimes your form is just off, and that'll affect your shot just like a broken leg would.
I think you're missing the point. The statistics look at this from a results side. It turns out, that at the NBA level, your form is never "just off". That simply doesn't happen for professional 3PT shooters, and the statistics prove it.
Instead, they always shoot the same percentage, and just because of how statistics works, that means that some days they'll hit more shots than they will on other days.
Go back and look at my post that lists percentages for Mo Williams if he was always a 60% shooter vs. if had "had days where he was just off" and shot different percentages on different days. By looking through a large number of his games, we would be able to test whether a shooter had on days and offdays, because the percentage of 3PTs he made on different days would look completely different.
So by scanning through a large number of 3PT shooter games, you can mathematically decide whether they have "days where they are just off", and it turns out, they don't. People can swear that they felt they were particularly hot, or that they their form felt bad on some specific day, but it's all in their head, and it in no way affects their percentage at hitting the next shot.
The math proves it, and at the end of the day, you just have to call all 3PT streaks bumpkis because according to the math, they can't happen.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,333
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,333 |
You are talking about the overall picture. While we are saying that in order for that AVERAGE to be achieved they have got to have some bad days and some good days. While after reading your last post you are saying there is no such thing according to math. Which is fine and dandy...but the fact remains that they WILL shoot bad on some days. And that is all we are saying is that yes...the bad shot WILL come sooner or later. Law of averages?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
He is saying under ideal conditions...but he doesn't understand that it's not a lab and you can't just ignore all the variables.
No, these statistics aren't ideal. These are statistics taken from real NBA games over a period of years. It's not idealized at all, and for the case of open 3PT shots, NBA players simply aren't hot or cold. It might not apply to types of shots, where differences in defense/matchups and schemes make the difference more difficult to compute.
http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/faculty/jonathan.koehler/articles/2003_JSEP.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob...2ff445582d717e9
~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 03/28/09 01:06 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
You are talking about the overall picture. While we are saying that in order for that AVERAGE to be achieved they have got to have some bad days and some good days. While after reading your last post you are saying there is no such thing according to math. Which is fine and dandy...but the fact remains that they WILL shoot bad on some days. And that is all we are saying is that yes...the bad shot WILL come sooner or later. Law of averages?
Right....if you look at my above post for a 40% shooter, I show that he will shoot :
0-10:::0.60% of games
1-10::::4.03% of games
2-10:::: 12.09% of games
3-10:::::21.50% of games
4-10:::::25.08% of games
5-10:::::20.07% of games
6-10:::::11.15% of games
7-10:::::4.25% of games
8-10:::::1.06% of games
9-10:::::0.16% of games
10-10::::0.01% of games
The difference between common belief and actual fact is this. Assume that our guy has gone ?-10 so far this game, and now he has to come out and take a final three to win the game. Everybody on here would be much more comfortable if he was 8-10 on threes so far that day, instead of if he was 2-10.
But in fact, he is going to hit the final 3PTer 40% of the time, and it doesn't really matter whether he is 8-10 or 2-10 so far in the game. Because it's not really that he's hotter or colder, it's just that more shots have happened to go in or not.
That is, the difference between peoples beliefs and the facts, is that they think that bad performance in the beginning of a game, predicts bad performance at the end of the game, when that is not actually true.
~Lyuokdea
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
Quote:
Thats all great and stuff....
But my original argument was that a player shooting closer from the basket has a better chance of being more consistant. that is..it's a high % shot. so i rather have a inside game over couple of players who can shoot from outside. Don't get me wrong that isn't to say i don't want both..because that would be ideal. Your team would be more complete. But if i had to pick one over the other i would go with the inside game jus cuz it's more consistant.
Agreed, and part of the reason for this is statistics, which is the original point i was trying to make.
Let's look at two teams, they are the same except one has a great inside game. They shoot 10 extra inside shots at a 60% clip.
The second team shots 10 extra 3PT shots at a 40% clip.
Now both teams average 12 points from those attempts (3*.4*10=2*.6*10)
However, let's look at the number of points they score from those shots on different games:
Inside Team:
0 points:::: 0.01%
2 points::::0.18%
4 points::::1.06%
6 points;::::4.25%
8 points:::::11.14%
10 points:::20.07%
12 points::: 25.08%
14 points:::::21.50%
16 points:::::12.09%
18 points:::::4.03%
20 points::::0.60%
3PT shooting team:
0 points::: 0.60%
3 points::: 4.03%
6 points::: 12.09%
9 points::: 21.50%
12 points::: 25.08%
15 points::: 20.07%
18 points::: 11.14%
21 points::: 4.25%
24 points::: 1.06%
27 points::: 0.18%
30 points::: 0.01%
So the point is that just due to statistics, 3PT shooting teams have a higher percentage chance of having games where they score 6 points or less from these extra shots ( 16.72% vs. 5.49%). However, they also have a better chance of scoring more than 20 points (5.49% vs. 0.00% since this is impossible by shooting 10 2s)
So the overall answer is that 3PT shooting teams are more likely to both overperform and underperform on any given day. Thus they are more variable teams than inside teams.
~Lyuokdea
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 03/28/09 01:27 PM.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
I don't know Oklahoma basketball enough to say one way or another (vs. their adequate inside game with the twins) but not getting their 3's tonite killed them.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum OSU's B.J. Mullens declares for
NBA draft...
|
|
![[Linked Image from fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net]](https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/276870_6711658857_1403067853_q.jpg)
