MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[Mr. Ypsi]

nd'!

We statisticians seek truth, but we also risk being killjoys.

Holy epistemological error, Mr. Y! If there's one thing statisticians don't seek, it's truth. They seek probabilities. There's a world of difference between those two things.

Mea culpa.  I'll support your first and third sentences, but take issue with the second and fourth.  We seek probabilities which will hopefully support (or shed light on) the truth.  (Or, for that matter, disconfirm 'the truth', otherwise derived.)

[Mr. Ypsi]

Players who believe within the course of a game that they are hot, and that they can hit any shot they put up, frequently throw up airballs, shots that hit backboard and not rim, shots that are ridiculously off-line. etc., as if whatever magic basketball pixie made all of their previous shots go in will make those go in as well.

I've seen it happen so many times that I can almost set my watch by it ... if I owned a watch, that is.

The ancient Greeks had a word for this: Hubris. Dunno if the Frisians have a word for it, too, but if they do, this is the time for someone to share it with the rest of us.

On the other hand, you and I both saw the game by Andy Draayer 6 years ago at Wheaton.  THAT was a 'hot hand' - whether within the realm of statistical anomalies or not!

That was the exception that proves the rule. All of the Calvin people I spoke to that night said that Draayer had never had a night like that before -- and that was even taking into consideration the fact that Draayer was a very good shooter.

Just quickly looking at 3-pt percentages from Andy Draayer that year:

8 of 12 (I believe this was "the night"): http://www.calvin.edu/sports/mens/basketball/results/2004-05/mwhe5.htm

9 of 14: http://www.calvin.edu/sports/mens/basketball/results/2004-05/cm0212.htm

7 of 11: http://www.calvin.edu/sports/mens/basketball/results/2004-05/caol0209.htm

6 of 7: http://www.calvin.edu/sports/mens/basketball/results/2004-05/game-11.htm

So he had 4 HOT games that year, games in which he shot a blistering .682 from three.  The rest of that year, he shot .400 from three.  No hot hand, huh? 

As I've already expressed, I think the statisticians are correct that 'the hot hand' does not fall outside of the random distribution of results.  I've also expressed that I think belief in 'the hot hand' CAN have a powerful effect (including for the worse, as Greg pointed out).

But sometimes for the better.

You and sac were ALSO at that game in Wheaton.  Whether or not it exists as fact, Andy Draayer definitely felt he had it, and HAD IT, that game.  I know nothing about the other games whose box scores KS posted, but that game his shots were with hands in his face, including one I will never forget where he was literally falling out of bounds as he threw up a 'swish'!

[KnightSlappy]

Players who believe within the course of a game that they are hot, and that they can hit any shot they put up, frequently throw up airballs, shots that hit backboard and not rim, shots that are ridiculously off-line. etc., as if whatever magic basketball pixie made all of their previous shots go in will make those go in as well.

I've seen it happen so many times that I can almost set my watch by it ... if I owned a watch, that is.

The ancient Greeks had a word for this: Hubris. Dunno if the Frisians have a word for it, too, but if they do, this is the time for someone to share it with the rest of us.

On the other hand, you and I both saw the game by Andy Draayer 6 years ago at Wheaton.  THAT was a 'hot hand' - whether within the realm of statistical anomalies or not!

That was the exception that proves the rule. All of the Calvin people I spoke to that night said that Draayer had never had a night like that before -- and that was even taking into consideration the fact that Draayer was a very good shooter.

Just quickly looking at 3-pt percentages from Andy Draayer that year:

8 of 12 (I believe this was "the night"): http://www.calvin.edu/sports/mens/basketball/results/2004-05/mwhe5.htm

9 of 14: http://www.calvin.edu/sports/mens/basketball/results/2004-05/cm0212.htm

7 of 11: http://www.calvin.edu/sports/mens/basketball/results/2004-05/caol0209.htm

6 of 7: http://www.calvin.edu/sports/mens/basketball/results/2004-05/game-11.htm

So he had 4 HOT games that year, games in which he shot a blistering .682 from three.  The rest of that year, he shot .400 from three.  No hot hand, huh? 

As I've already expressed, I think the statisticians are correct that 'the hot hand' does not fall outside of the random distribution of results.  I've also expressed that I think belief in 'the hot hand' CAN have a powerful effect (including for the worse, as Greg pointed out).

But sometimes for the better.

You and sac were ALSO at that game in Wheaton.  Whether or not it exists as fact, Andy Draayer definitely felt he had it, and HAD IT, that game.  I know nothing about the other games whose box scores KS posted, but that game his shots were with hands in his face, including one I will never forget where he was literally falling out of bounds as he threw up a 'swish'!

Seemed like he did this on a near game by game basis. He perfected the falling down "and-one" three point shot.

He often ended up in his teammates laps on the bench while nailing a trey.

[HopeConvert]

nd'!

We statisticians seek truth, but we also risk being killjoys.

Holy epistemological error, Mr. Y! If there's one thing statisticians don't seek, it's truth. They seek probabilities. There's a world of difference between those two things.

Mea culpa.  I'll support your first and third sentences, but take issue with the second and fourth.  We seek probabilities which will hopefully support (or shed light on) the truth.  (Or, for that matter, disconfirm 'the truth', otherwise derived.)

I'm afraid i's not a pick and choose proposition.

[Knightmare]

Well let's hope that none of Calvin's players picked up this virus going around from Albion's players.  That'd be a shame if it had an impact on saturday.

http://www.wwmt.com/articles/cancels-1386668-classes-college.html

[Mr. Ypsi]

nd'!

We statisticians seek truth, but we also risk being killjoys.

Holy epistemological error, Mr. Y! If there's one thing statisticians don't seek, it's truth. They seek probabilities. There's a world of difference between those two things.

Mea culpa.  I'll support your first and third sentences, but take issue with the second and fourth.  We seek probabilities which will hopefully support (or shed light on) the truth.  (Or, for that matter, disconfirm 'the truth', otherwise derived.)

I'm afraid i's not a pick and choose proposition.

Au contraire.  (And, gimme a break, I'm running out of foreign phrases! )  You are apparently from the quantum mechanics wing of statistics!  I always taught my students to use statistics to seek truth, wherever it may lie.  And I believe there IS a truth to quantify.  Heck, I don't even accept Einstein - for everyday life, Newton is plenty good enough.

[ziggy]

Players who believe within the course of a game that they are hot, and that they can hit any shot they put up, frequently throw up airballs, shots that hit backboard and not rim, shots that are ridiculously off-line. etc., as if whatever magic basketball pixie made all of their previous shots go in will make those go in as well.

I've seen it happen so many times that I can almost set my watch by it ... if I owned a watch, that is.

The ancient Greeks had a word for this: Hubris. Dunno if the Frisians have a word for it, too, but if they do, this is the time for someone to share it with the rest of us.

Excellent point Greg. Those that believe in the hot hand theory disregard vast statistical evidence for isolated personal experiences. How many times have you (in the collective sense of the word) sat at a game and watched a player hit a couple shots and then miss the next one badly then turn to the d3board poster next to you and make a joke about that shot being a heat check? We've all done it.

So was the player hot? Maybe, maybe not. Does this mean there are varying degrees of "being in the zone" or "having the hot hand"? In a sense yes, however I prefer to call it a "normal distribution" or a "bell curve".

As for the argument that statistical analysis falls short in accounting for intangibles like confidence, I think that is false as well. The analysis is built upon real life facts, not a data set derived from robotic theoretical outcomes. The intangibles are built right into the analysis.

I would be more inclined to side with those that rely on personal experience if I had reason to believe that their personal experience constituted a data set as large or larger than the data set analyzed in the various studies on the topic. Unfortunately, I do not believe it is.

[sac]

Well let's hope that none of Calvin's players picked up this virus going around from Albion's players.  That'd be a shame if it had an impact on saturday.

http://www.wwmt.com/articles/cancels-1386668-classes-college.html

Soooo.........does this mean Olivet at Albion is canceled Saturday?

[ziggy]

Well let's hope that none of Calvin's players picked up this virus going around from Albion's players.  That'd be a shame if it had an impact on saturday.

http://www.wwmt.com/articles/cancels-1386668-classes-college.html

Soooo.........does this mean Olivet at Albion is canceled Saturday?

Looks like it will be. I am trying to remember how games have been rescheduled due to weather in the past. Game on a Monday?

[HopeConvert]

nd'!

We statisticians seek truth, but we also risk being killjoys.

Holy epistemological error, Mr. Y! If there's one thing statisticians don't seek, it's truth. They seek probabilities. There's a world of difference between those two things.

Mea culpa.  I'll support your first and third sentences, but take issue with the second and fourth.  We seek probabilities which will hopefully support (or shed light on) the truth.  (Or, for that matter, disconfirm 'the truth', otherwise derived.)

I'm afraid i's not a pick and choose proposition.

Au contraire.  (And, gimme a break, I'm running out of foreign phrases! )  You are apparently from the quantum mechanics wing of statistics!  I always taught my students to use statistics to seek truth, wherever it may lie.  And I believe there IS a truth to quantify.  Heck, I don't even accept Einstein - for everyday life, Newton is plenty good enough.

Statistics, by definition, can't seek truth.

Theodore Porter's The Rise of Statistical Thinking is an excellent historical examination of this problem. Aristotle is a first-rate philosophical examination. When you say "truth" here I suspect you're operating with a correspondence theory.

[HopeConvert]

Well let's hope that none of Calvin's players picked up this virus going around from Albion's players.  That'd be a shame if it had an impact on saturday.

http://www.wwmt.com/articles/cancels-1386668-classes-college.html

I'm willing to pay for them to spend a day together.

[sac]

Well let's hope that none of Calvin's players picked up this virus going around from Albion's players.  That'd be a shame if it had an impact on saturday.

http://www.wwmt.com/articles/cancels-1386668-classes-college.html

Soooo.........does this mean Olivet at Albion is canceled Saturday?

Looks like it will be. I am trying to remember how games have been rescheduled due to weather in the past. Game on a Monday?

Yes Monday's.   Hope and Albion did that a couple years ago.

[sac]

Straight from Albion.edu


Basketball contests are postponed



Thursday, January 27, 2011

The Albion College basketball contests scheduled for Saturday have been postponed due to the incidence of seasonal flu in the campus community. The men's team was scheduled to play host to Olivet College and the women's squad was to play at Adrian College. The makeup date for both contests has yet to be announced.

[Mr. Ypsi]

nd'!

We statisticians seek truth, but we also risk being killjoys.

Holy epistemological error, Mr. Y! If there's one thing statisticians don't seek, it's truth. They seek probabilities. There's a world of difference between those two things.

Mea culpa.  I'll support your first and third sentences, but take issue with the second and fourth.  We seek probabilities which will hopefully support (or shed light on) the truth.  (Or, for that matter, disconfirm 'the truth', otherwise derived.)

I'm afraid i's not a pick and choose proposition.

Au contraire.  (And, gimme a break, I'm running out of foreign phrases! )  You are apparently from the quantum mechanics wing of statistics!  I always taught my students to use statistics to seek truth, wherever it may lie.  And I believe there IS a truth to quantify.  Heck, I don't even accept Einstein - for everyday life, Newton is plenty good enough.

Statistics, by definition, can't seek truth.

Theodore Porter's The Rise of Statistical Thinking is an excellent historical examination of this problem. Aristotle is a first-rate philosophical examination. When you say "truth" here I suspect you're operating with a correspondence theory.

Now you are going WAY deeper philosophically than the discussion I thought I had signed on to!   I'm just using 'truth' in the everyday, common sense sort of way.  Statistics can (and should) probe those sorts of 'truths'.  You know, like should we go for it on 4th and short?  (YES)

Being more than 40 years out of college, I'm not too keen on investigating the 'deeper' issues past my bedtime!

I'm not familiar with the Porter book, but I'll check it out.

[Erm Schmigget]

The following quote is pulled straight from the aforementioned Holland Sentinel write-up on the Hope vs. Kzoo game.  Count Will Bowser in the camp of believers in a "hot" shooting player.  Found this a bit interesting and no we don't need to revisit that debate.  We can all still politely agree to disagree  .

From Holland Sentinel:
"I was definitely in the zone. I've been in the zone before, it's one of the greatest feelings in the world," said Bowser, who now holds the second-highest single game scoring mark in Hope history, and the highest for any Hope player at home. "It's just something that feels like the hoop is the ocean. I mean anything that I let go just felt good."

As it turns out, yes we do.  

CM-  Thanks for the "Jimmer" story link.  It wasn't MIAA or even DIII, but it was about the game of basketball.  This is, after all, a basketball discussion board, right?  Not a support group for mathheads?

Seriously, folks.  This is some of the driest, most uninteresting drivel a sports fan could stumble upon.  If someone outside the MIAA (Sager and Ypsi notwithstanding) came here looking for insight, banter, predictions about the "big rivalry game" coming this Saturday, they would be sorely disappointed and leave thinking nothing more than "what a bunch of pencil necks!"  And this is coming from and internal auditor.  Talk about dry and uninteresting.  I get enough of that from 9-5.  Can we talk about basketball?  Please?

Who is going to step up from either team this Saturday?  Which fan section is going to be the better 6th man?  How have these teams improved since their meeting earlier this month?  Where have they struggled?  What are the implications of a Calvin win or a Hope win if the teams finished the season tied for 1st?  Why do Calvin students wear shirts that suggest that one should be at Hope?  You want stats?  How about a comparison of Hope's vs. Calvin's starters' statistics?  Or bench contributions?  These are the things we used to discuss every week!  Now we don't even get anything like it during the lead-up to the Rivalry rematch??    I want to read about basketball...not math homework.

Killjoys.  You nailed it Ypsi.

Rant over.  Bed.  Maybe when I wake up we will have returned to our regularly scheduled programing...