Is there such a thing as an athletic "zone" an individual can be in, a psychological state in which everything falls into place and person performs at his or her plateaued best?
Some scientific research and mathematical analysis suggests, "no." Most sports have an element of the random involved, which makes sports exciting. Will Smith make a hit/basket/touchdown to win the game?! Like the stock market, their are episodes of up and down. These fluctuations are a natural part of the activity. As I argued in my Skeptic magazine article, The Tea Leaves of Sports Talk: Finding Meaning in Random Sequences, talk of "getting hot" and being "in the zone" seem to consist primarily of hindsight talk of a string of "ups."
But a true condition of being "in the zone" would predict continued above-average performance. Previous research has shown that isn't the case. Like a tossed coin, a 50% performer (as a simplified example) who has strung three "heads" together is just as likely on the fourth go to generate a tails or a heads. 50%. If its "heads," we may persist in thinking the person is in the zone. If "tails," we may say they have gone cold. Yet the hotness and coldness is all in our heads.
New research, however, suggests that there may be a little something to the idea. From the Eurekalert post, Athletes' winning streaks may not be all in our -- or their -- heads, we read,
Yaari and Eisenmann used a large data set of more than 300,000 free throws to show strong support for the "hot hand" phenomenon at the individual level. They analyzed all free throws taken during five regular seasons NBA seasons from 2005 to 2010. They found that there was a significant increase in players' probabilities of hitting the second shot in a two shot series compared to the first one. They also found that in a set of two consecutive shots, the probability of hitting the second shot is greater following a hit than following a miss on the previous one. [emphasis added]
Notice that the first element of their finding is questionable. After a first shot, making the second shot is more likely. This could be chaulked up to "warming up," making slight adjustments, etc. But the second element, that there is no increase after a miss, seems to mean something.
Unfortunately, the press release doesn't provide this all-important detail: How much of an increase.
Still, an interesting finding. One, for this skeptic anyway, to keep an eye on. My previous belief may be disconfirmed.
Tags: perception, sports, superstition
Leave a Reply