How Do You Guys Feel About Momentum?

[nick23]

There has been a lot of talk here recently about "clutch hitting". And are certain players more clutch than others. I personally don't believe in clutch players but some people do. My question though is, what is your take on "momentum"? It obviously can't be measured, and I'm assuming there is no real stat that includes it. But I believe it exhists. I certainly can't prove it or back it up with any stats. But I think it is there. I'm the oppisite, but I would assume that the people on here that believe in clutch players also believe in momentum. While the more heavy stat guys don't. Just wondering some of you guy's opinions on it. Thanks.

[UK1679666180]

Confidence and lack of conifdence exists, so momentum does exist. It's all part of the mental approach to the game.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I really haven't looked into momentum much, but if I had to guess I'd say it's similar to clutch hitting. Player's have the momentum sometimes, and sometimes they don't. Much like performances in clutch situations, it will level out over time with respect to how often you have or don't have it. Also, I think momentum plays much less of a role as it does in other sports, given the methodical nature of the game.

[Magnetic Curses]

while i wouldn't classify momentum as a leprechaun or unicorn; i'd probably call it a yeti, sasquatch, or loch ness monster, as it's existence is possible, yet still unproven.

[pete the dog]

Do you mean individual momentum? Like a player getting "hot?"

 

Not sure about hitting, but in basketball, the "hot hand" has turned out to be a unicorn. Statistically, it does not exist. I would assume "hot hitting" would fall out the same way, but I don't know of any analyses of the question.

[Magnetic Curses]

Do you mean individual momentum? Like a player getting "hot?"

 

Not sure about hitting, but in basketball, the "hot hand" has turned out to be a unicorn. Statistically, it does not exist. I would assume "hot hitting" would fall out the same way, but I don't know of any analyses of the question.

 

i would agree that hitters most definitely get hot (see the ball extremely well) over short and long stretches. the playoffs are agreat example of the hottest team winning, not necessarily the best. the marlins, red sox, and white sox are great examples of very hot hitting (and pitching) teams winning it all. sometimes, it all comes together at once, and generally those teams are able to win the series.

[CubinNY]

If there is such a thing as momentum in sports I would think it would player a larger role in the timed sports like football, baskettball, and socer then in baseball.

 

Interestingly enough, there is a phenomenon known as behavioral momentum. It deals with inducing a low probabliltiy response to occur by interspersng it with high probability responses.

 

Here is one to try on your friends that is kind of related to behaivoral momentum.

 

you have to say this in a rapid fire fashion

 

How do you spell roast

How do you spell most

How do you spell boast

What do you put in a toaster

 

9 times out of 10 they will say toast.

 

You put bread in a toaster

[nick23]

Do you mean individual momentum? Like a player getting "hot?"

 

Not sure about hitting, but in basketball, the "hot hand" has turned out to be a unicorn. Statistically, it does not exist. I would assume "hot hitting" would fall out the same way, but I don't know of any analyses of the question.

 

I was referring more to team momentum. Also I would disagree with "hot hand" in basketball not exhisting.

[pete the dog]

Do you mean individual momentum? Like a player getting "hot?"

 

Not sure about hitting, but in basketball, the "hot hand" has turned out to be a unicorn. Statistically, it does not exist. I would assume "hot hitting" would fall out the same way, but I don't know of any analyses of the question.

 

i would agree that hitters most definitely get hot (see the ball extremely well) over short and long stretches. the playoffs are agreat example of the hottest team winning, not necessarily the best. the marlins, red sox, and white sox are great examples of very hot hitting (and pitching) teams winning it all. sometimes, it all comes together at once, and generally those teams are able to win the series.

 

 

But those "hot streaks" likely fall within the range of their average performance. They don't all of a sudden become better hitters, per se.

 

If you flip a coin a thousand times, the chances of hitting some long streaks of all heads or tails is pretty high. Someone observing 8 heads in a row might say the coin is fixed. But those streaks happen with regularity--even in a random string of events. So, "getting hot" (at least in basketball and probably in baseball) is within the range of a player's average expected performance over many trials.

 

This really shows the critical role of luck in small samples--like the playoffs. The teams that have a hot streak could be experiencing momentum, or they could be experiencing random fluctuation in their favor (i.e., luck).

[Magnetic Curses]

Do you mean individual momentum? Like a player getting "hot?"

 

Not sure about hitting, but in basketball, the "hot hand" has turned out to be a unicorn. Statistically, it does not exist. I would assume "hot hitting" would fall out the same way, but I don't know of any analyses of the question.

 

i would agree that hitters most definitely get hot (see the ball extremely well) over short and long stretches. the playoffs are agreat example of the hottest team winning, not necessarily the best. the marlins, red sox, and white sox are great examples of very hot hitting (and pitching) teams winning it all. sometimes, it all comes together at once, and generally those teams are able to win the series.

 

 

But those "hot streaks" likely fall within the range of their average performance. They don't all of a sudden become better hitters, per se.

 

If you flip a coin a thousand times, the chances of hitting some long streaks of all heads or tails is pretty high. Someone observing 8 heads in a row might say the coin is fixed. But those streaks happen with regularity--even in a random string of events. So, "getting hot" (at least in basketball and probably in baseball) is within the range of a player's average expected performance over many trials.

 

This really shows the critical role of luck in small samples--like the playoffs. The teams that have a hot streak could be experiencing momentum, or they could be experiencing random fluctuation in their favor (i.e., luck).

 

hey, your using my material! i always use the coinflip example.

 

i generally use it to demonstrate the detriment of micromanaging.

 

let's say that baseball is 60% luck and 40% skill. luck generally evens itself out over 162 games, sometimes it takes longer, but generally, luck is even for everyone over a large enough sample size. this means that talent wins out and everyone will win the exact same amount of coin flips.

 

this does NOT work out when your manager is inconsistent in the way that he approaches the game. if the manager calls heads 81 games, and tails in 81 games, the luck might not even out and he has the possibility of costing the team games even with luck being absolutely even.

 

this is why bunting, hit and runs, and stolen bases, imo, are coin flips, they introduce even more chance into a game in which you want to keep chance at a minimum, especially if your team has a lot of talent. only lesser talented teams rely on luck to win. if you DON'T behave consistently across all situations, you can cost your team runs and games.

 

the best thing that a manager can do is trust in the ability of his ball club to hit the ball and get on base. there will be times when your team gets unlucky and loses games, there will also be games in which your team gets lucky and wins. trust in the law of averages and allow your team's talent to shine through.

[MPrior]

Do you mean individual momentum? Like a player getting "hot?"

 

Not sure about hitting, but in basketball, the "hot hand" has turned out to be a unicorn. Statistically, it does not exist. I would assume "hot hitting" would fall out the same way, but I don't know of any analyses of the question.

 

i would agree that hitters most definitely get hot (see the ball extremely well) over short and long stretches. the playoffs are agreat example of the hottest team winning, not necessarily the best. the marlins, red sox, and white sox are great examples of very hot hitting (and pitching) teams winning it all. sometimes, it all comes together at once, and generally those teams are able to win the series.

 

 

But those "hot streaks" likely fall within the range of their average performance. They don't all of a sudden become better hitters, per se.

 

If you flip a coin a thousand times, the chances of hitting some long streaks of all heads or tails is pretty high. Someone observing 8 heads in a row might say the coin is fixed. But those streaks happen with regularity--even in a random string of events. So, "getting hot" (at least in basketball and probably in baseball) is within the range of a player's average expected performance over many trials.

 

This really shows the critical role of luck in small samples--like the playoffs. The teams that have a hot streak could be experiencing momentum, or they could be experiencing random fluctuation in their favor (i.e., luck).

 

hey, your using my material! i always use the coinflip example.

 

i generally use it to demonstrate the detriment of micromanaging.

 

let's say that baseball is 60% luck and 40% skill. luck generally evens itself out over 162 games, sometimes it takes longer, but generally, luck is even for everyone over a large enough sample size. this means that talent wins out and everyone will win the exact same amount of coin flips.

 

this does NOT work out when your manager is inconsistent in the way that he approaches the game. if the manager calls heads 81 games, and tails in 81 games, the luck might not even out and he has the possibility of costing the team games even with luck being absolutely even.

 

this is why bunting, hit and runs, and stolen bases, imo, are coin flips, they introduce even more chance into a game in which you want to keep chance at a minimum, especially if your team has a lot of talent. only lesser talented teams rely on luck to win. if you DON'T behave consistently across all situations, you can cost your team runs and games.

 

the best thing that a manager can do is trust in the ability of his ball club to hit the ball and get on base. there will be times when your team gets unlucky and loses games, there will also be games in which your team gets lucky and wins. trust in the law of averages and allow your team's talent to shine through.

 

While I think I get what you're saying, and I think I may even agree with you, your analogy is a little confusing, and I don't think it works particularly well. I could be wrong, but what I'm getting is that, metaphorically, the manager should be calling heads (or tails) 162 times, as opposed to calling heads and tails at different times, depending on the situation. Statistically, this shouldn't make any difference. If I call heads all the time, I have a 50% chance each time I call it that it will be right. But if I mix it up, and sometimes call heads, and sometimes call tails, I still have exactly a 50% chance each time that I'll be right.

 

What I think you're saying is that the manager should not increase the effect that chance has on the game by minimizing the effect that his team's talent can have on the game. Say, by micromanaging your bullpen, taking a superior pitcher out of the game just so you can have a lefty face the upcoming lefty. If that's the case I agree with you.

 

I'm only pointing all this out cause I'm trying to fully understand your point. So let me know if I'm off here.

[cjbucks]

Ron Santo believes in momentum..................that and funamentals :)

[Magnetic Curses]

While I think I get what you're saying, and I think I may even agree with you, your analogy is a little confusing, and I don't think it works particularly well. I could be wrong, but what I'm getting is that, metaphorically, the manager should be calling heads (or tails) 162 times, as opposed to calling heads and tails at different times, depending on the situation. Statistically, this shouldn't make any difference. If I call heads all the time, I have a 50% chance each time I call it that it will be right. But if I mix it up, and sometimes call heads, and sometimes call tails, I still have exactly a 50% chance each time that I'll be right.

 

only over 1 sample, though, which is exactly the type of micromanagement that i'm talking about. with more of a sample size, your odds fluctuate. this is what you should attempt to reduce in the game of baseball.

 

if it's a certainty that heads will come up 81 times and tails will come up 81 times over 162 flips, mixing it up could cost you. it's simple law of averages.

 

calling heads 162 times will assure that you are correct exactly 50% of the time, while you push your luck by mixing it up. you could be more correct, or could be more incorrect, guessing is foolish if you have the talent. by calling heads, you are doing all you can to minimize chance.

[pete the dog]

While I think I get what you're saying, and I think I may even agree with you, your analogy is a little confusing, and I don't think it works particularly well. I could be wrong, but what I'm getting is that, metaphorically, the manager should be calling heads (or tails) 162 times, as opposed to calling heads and tails at different times, depending on the situation. Statistically, this shouldn't make any difference. If I call heads all the time, I have a 50% chance each time I call it that it will be right. But if I mix it up, and sometimes call heads, and sometimes call tails, I still have exactly a 50% chance each time that I'll be right.

 

only over 1 sample, though, which is exactly the type of micromanagement that i'm talking about. with more of a sample size, your odds fluctuate. this is what you should attempt to reduce in the game of baseball.

 

if it's a certainty that heads will come up 81 times and tails will come up 81 times over 162 flips, mixing it up could cost you. it's simple law of averages.

 

calling heads 162 times will assure that you are correct exactly 50% of the time, while you push your luck by mixing it up. you could be more correct, or could be more incorrect, guessing is foolish if you have the talent. by calling heads, you are doing all you can to minimize chance.

 

 

That's not true. There is no "law of averages." Statistically, there is no difference between picking heads every time and alternating between heads and tails.

 

The real key in managing is figuring out which option has the greater likelihood of success across many trials, and sticking with that option. So, if you have a coin that produces heads 55% of the time, then you should always pick heads. But with a fair coin, it doesn't matter what you pick over the long haul.

[Magnetic Curses]

While I think I get what you're saying, and I think I may even agree with you, your analogy is a little confusing, and I don't think it works particularly well. I could be wrong, but what I'm getting is that, metaphorically, the manager should be calling heads (or tails) 162 times, as opposed to calling heads and tails at different times, depending on the situation. Statistically, this shouldn't make any difference. If I call heads all the time, I have a 50% chance each time I call it that it will be right. But if I mix it up, and sometimes call heads, and sometimes call tails, I still have exactly a 50% chance each time that I'll be right.

 

only over 1 sample, though, which is exactly the type of micromanagement that i'm talking about. with more of a sample size, your odds fluctuate. this is what you should attempt to reduce in the game of baseball.

 

if it's a certainty that heads will come up 81 times and tails will come up 81 times over 162 flips, mixing it up could cost you. it's simple law of averages.

 

calling heads 162 times will assure that you are correct exactly 50% of the time, while you push your luck by mixing it up. you could be more correct, or could be more incorrect, guessing is foolish if you have the talent. by calling heads, you are doing all you can to minimize chance.

 

 

That's not true. There is no "law of averages." Statistically, there is no difference between picking heads every time and alternating between heads and tails.

 

The real key in managing is figuring out which option has the greater likelihood of success across many trials, and sticking with that option. So, if you have a coin that produces heads 55% of the time, then you should always pick heads. But with a fair coin, it doesn't matter what you pick over the long haul.

 

if you flip a coin enough times, heads and tails will ultimately gravitate towards being even. 162 times should be enough to get a fair distribution.

 

if you take each situation by itself, out of the context of the whole, and approach it as being any different than any other situation, and act differently--there's a slight chance you could be wrong every time. while, if you're consistent with what you call, you'll be correct half the time.

 

maybe there is someone who can explain it better than i can, but i believe that if you fluctuate between two different answers when each answer is assured to come up exactly 50% of the time, your averages will definitely fluctuate each time you perform the experiemnt. i could be wrong, though.

[JC]

Well, it is obviously better than less mentum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait for it....

(Especially you, Abuck).

[imb]

booo

[MPrior]

Well, it is obviously better than less mentum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait for it....

(Especially you, Abuck).

 

I have newfound respect for you. No, seriously. That was awesome.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You haven't been around here long then.

[pete the dog]

While I think I get what you're saying, and I think I may even agree with you, your analogy is a little confusing, and I don't think it works particularly well. I could be wrong, but what I'm getting is that, metaphorically, the manager should be calling heads (or tails) 162 times, as opposed to calling heads and tails at different times, depending on the situation. Statistically, this shouldn't make any difference. If I call heads all the time, I have a 50% chance each time I call it that it will be right. But if I mix it up, and sometimes call heads, and sometimes call tails, I still have exactly a 50% chance each time that I'll be right.

 

only over 1 sample, though, which is exactly the type of micromanagement that i'm talking about. with more of a sample size, your odds fluctuate. this is what you should attempt to reduce in the game of baseball.

 

if it's a certainty that heads will come up 81 times and tails will come up 81 times over 162 flips, mixing it up could cost you. it's simple law of averages.

 

calling heads 162 times will assure that you are correct exactly 50% of the time, while you push your luck by mixing it up. you could be more correct, or could be more incorrect, guessing is foolish if you have the talent. by calling heads, you are doing all you can to minimize chance.

 

 

That's not true. There is no "law of averages." Statistically, there is no difference between picking heads every time and alternating between heads and tails.

 

The real key in managing is figuring out which option has the greater likelihood of success across many trials, and sticking with that option. So, if you have a coin that produces heads 55% of the time, then you should always pick heads. But with a fair coin, it doesn't matter what you pick over the long haul.

 

if you flip a coin enough times, heads and tails will ultimately gravitate towards being even. 162 times should be enough to get a fair distribution.

 

if you take each situation by itself, out of the context of the whole, and approach it as being any different than any other situation, and act differently--there's a slight chance you could be wrong every time. while, if you're consistent with what you call, you'll be correct half the time.

 

maybe there is someone who can explain it better than i can, but i believe that if you fluctuate between two different answers when each answer is assured to come up exactly 50% of the time, your averages will definitely fluctuate each time you perform the experiemnt. i could be wrong, though.

 

 

With a 50-50 coin there's not a slight chance that you'll be wrong every time. There is exactly a 50% chance that you'll be wrong every time--no matter what has happened on any of the past 160 trials. Again, this is assuming you have a fair 50-50 coin.

 

That 50% chance of being correct or incorrect is the same on every trial, regardless of whether you choose heads or tails and regardless of how many times in the past you chose heads or tails. The coin does not keep track of what you guessed on previous tosses.

 

There is no difference between picking heads every time, picking it 2/3 of the time or picking it half the time. Each trial is an independent 50/50 event.