So can someone explain this to me? I'm guessing it's related to the argument that there is no such thing as clutch... I don't really have much of an opinion of this either way, but see it come up once in awhile. Most often by a guy I follow on Twitter (Bill Barnwell). I usually just ignore it as something like "I don't really care"... but a stupid example to support the no-momentum idea during tonight's football game made me want to understand this more (Barnwell I guess sarcastically was saying the Jets goal-line stand at the end of the first half didn't give them momentum in the second half). It just sounded like a stupid sarcastic tweet and I wanna understand this no-momentum argument.

I just know from my little sports experience that it does seem like the players on the field/court/whatever are affected by momentum and some sort of being clutch or not... but I guess there is some statistical or scientific way to say this is all bs?

Did you read the couple of articles on Grantland that Barnwell posted about momentum? He outlines his case pretty well in both of the articles.

Bill Barnwell on the theory of momentum in football - Grantland (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9580775/bill-barnwell-theory-momentum-football)

Nomentum in Sports, Part 2 - The Triangle Blog - Grantland (http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/71970/nomentum-in-sports-part-2)

It was a stupid and sarcastic tweet because he's purposely trying to make it sound like that. He beats his ant-momentum stance into the ground. I agree with the overall argument he raises but shit is it annoying to constantly read about.

I guess the general case against momentum goes something like this: if you flip a coin 10 times and the first 5 are heads and the last 5 are tails, it looks like there's "momentum" in a micro sense. But when you look at the bigger picture, 5 heads and 5 tails is nothing out of the ordinary.

Sporting contests are made up of enough somewhat discrete events that it would be less probable for the teams to not go on a big run throughout the game. Most momentum-shifting plays or comebacks you can think of are probably just confirmation bias speaking, since for each time a team comes back from three touchdowns down in the second half, there are hundreds of times the team down three touchdowns just ends up losing by a lot.

Just from playing sports, I know there are times when playing an evenly matched team and you are just playing better than them. I don't know if you want to call it momentum, or clutch, or confidence, but there are streaks in sports.

Sports fans and broadcasters often simplify this as momentum, when in reality one team is just in a better streak at the time. If the sample size was bigger than one play, one game, or one series, it would work itself out statistically over time.

There is definitely clutch. A player that can remain cool and perform under pressure would be clutch.

So can someone explain this to me? I'm guessing it's related to the argument that there is no such thing as clutch... I don't really have much of an opinion of this either way, but see it come up once in awhile. Most often by a guy I follow on Twitter (Bill Barnwell). I usually just ignore it as something like "I don't really care"... but a stupid example to support the no-momentum idea during tonight's football game made me want to understand this more (Barnwell I guess sarcastically was saying the Jets goal-line stand at the end of the first half didn't give them momentum in the second half). It just sounded like a stupid sarcastic tweet and I wanna understand this no-momentum argument.

I just know from my little sports experience that it does seem like the players on the field/court/whatever are affected by momentum and some sort of being clutch or not... but I guess there is some statistical or scientific way to say this is all bs?

I think your last statement explains the whole argument. Opponents will say that since there is no way to actually quantify momentum and if it can not be quantified, it does not exist. Others will say that that a single act (like the goal stand) gave a team momentum. I guess you can look at it in the same way some look at religious beliefs. You either believe in it or you don't.

Of course there´s momentum because there is emotion. However, i think that the higher the level, the lesser the Impact. And also, even positive momentum/emotions can be bad (overconfidence) and negative ones can be good ("revenge" vibe), depending on the player(s) involved.

I think that there is emotion and momentum in sports. I think "momentum' is overused in descriptive writing about sports events and it's correct to criticize "momentum" arguments made by outsiders (sportswriters, commentators, observers) as being analytically lazy for all of the reasons that Barnwell describes. But does it exist? I think anyone who played or coached would think the obvious answer to that question to be yes.

I think "momentum' is overused in descriptive writing about sports events

I think that's the key. The simplest example to fall back on is that NFL coaches, who are historically risk averse, would by and large rather kick a FG on 4th and goal from the 1 because of stale arguments like "you need to come out of a drive with points to keep up the momentum" or "you don't want to fail and give the other team the momentum that comes with a key 4th down stop" when in actuality, if you do fail, it becomes pretty damn difficult for the other team to mount a successful drive from its own 1 yard line. And more often than not, they'll squeeze out a few yards, punt, and you'll end up with great field position anyway.

And we could probably throw in the unspecified distinction between "momentum" and "confidence". The latter may be what happens in some (many?) cases but leads to results that get labeled as the former.

In a world where we all accept the existence of things like Sports Psychologists I find it bizarre to attempt to argue that momentum does not exist. Humans are not robots and this attempt to statistically quantify every moment of any sports contest is going a little off the rails with stuff like this.

I think in baseball, it's really insignificant. Effort, adrenaline, trying harder, whatever don't typically make you play better. It usually will get a player out of their comfort zone and cause them to swing at pitches they shouldn't, leave curveballs up, try to do too much in the field and error, etc.

SI

You take the same shot, sometimes it goes in, sometimes it doesn't. Same with a baseball bat. The difference between that home run and the foul or the big catch at the fence is minute. Is that momentum? Probably not.

But there's also the time that you can score big in the first inning or period and it shuts the other team down. You get into the morale of the team, that's momentum.

For me, when I played sports in school or even just with friends, I would play better either A: after we had just made a big play or B: When we were trailing and needed to step it up. I would feel either less fatigue or no fatigue at all in those situations. My decision making would feel slower, but my reaction time faster. Now I am not saying I am clutch, more than a few times it didn't matter how much I or anyone else stepped up, the other team was just making plays. But more often than not, we were able to close out a game or make a comeback when a big play happened for us. I think momentum matters way more in football and basketball than it does in baseball, but clutch comes into play for all sports I believe. I really feel like it has to do with the fight or flight response we naturally have. Those who are best equipped to survive or succeed seem to have better luck tapping into that extra something when it is needed most. I think it is a real thing, especially given that we're still just smart animals when it all boils down to the nuts and bolts of what makes us.

Now measuring it? I don't think you can. I do feel like it exists though, because I've frequently experienced it.

The problem, as nol mentions, is confirmation bias. We want things like momentum and clutch to be meaningful -- they make intuitive sense, and their existence would make sports more interesting -- so we tend to remember when we think we see them.

But that could just be random chance. And all the times that momentum or clutch or whatever don't work, we just forget about them. So we continue to be convinced that they exist, even though whenever someone tries to step back and find big picture evidence, they tend to fail.

The reason Bill keeps mentioning the momentum stuff is that he's trying to force people to escape their confirmation bias -- you can't just ignore all the times that momentum doesn't work the way we'd expect if he makes a point to keep reminding you.

The reason Bill keeps mentioning the momentum stuff is that he's trying to force people to escape their confirmation bias -- you can't just ignore all the times that momentum doesn't work the way we'd expect if he makes a point to keep reminding you.

Look at that smooth name drop. Forgot you guys are all chummy now :).

So every time a basketball team goes on a quick 10-0 run, the other team shouldn't bother calling a timeout because momentum doesn't exist?

So every time a basketball team goes on a quick 10-0 run, the other team shouldn't bother calling a timeout because momentum doesn't exist?

1) Look at how a coach like Popovitch uses time outs. He will call them on a 2-0 run if he's not happy with how his defense played on a possession. He uses timeouts for breathers more than for "momentum"

2) Look at the causes for those 10-0 runs. Is it really momentum or is it execution, being tired, or another team just hitting a few prayers? If you are executing well and had a couple of in and outers or turnovers you don't normally make and the other team hit a couple of tough threes, I'd say pretty strongly momentum isn't playing a part here.

3) Basketball just happens to be the highest scoring sport, so people assume momentum is happening all the time. Take a coin and flip it in the air 100 times. Provided everything is equal and you are not using a loaded coin, you are going to have a series where the coin comes up heads 8 times in a row. It doesn't mean the momentum of gravity is changing, it's random chance.

4) Barnwell does believe in SOME limited momentum, he just doesn't believe it can be used to explain ever 10-0 run, or blowout win. Especially in the NFL, people can misinterpret momentum for all kinds of things it isn't. A Super Bowl calibur team can get taken to the wood shed on any given Sunday. A couple of stupid turnovers, fatigue, poor execution and suddenly you are on the wrong end of a 45-10 beatdown where everyone is asking you how you are going to recover. In most cases, the good teams recover just fine.

The problem I have with his stance, or at least his continued writing about momentum, is I feel like 95% of the population doesn't think momentum exists in the way that schmuck announcers like Phil Simms do. So it feels like Barnwell should be just writing all his columns directly to him, or to the commentators in a PFT article, instead of feeling, as I read his work, like I'm being called an idiot. I think he's a pretty good writer overall, so I just wish he didn't feel the need to shoehorn that topic into everything he writes.

The problem I have with his stance, or at least his continued writing about momentum, is I feel like 95% of the population doesn't think momentum exists in the way that schmuck announcers like Phil Simms do. So it feels like Barnwell should be just writing all his columns directly to him, or to the commentators in a PFT article, instead of feeling, as I read his work, like I'm being called an idiot. I think he's a pretty good writer overall, so I just wish he didn't feel the need to shoehorn that topic into everything he writes.

I think you overestimate the population.

I still come across plenty of baseball fans who have no understanding of OPS or of why wins isn't a meaningful statistic for a pitcher. I would guess if I had the momentum talk with them, many would believe it played a large part in the outcome of games.

I think you overestimate the population.

You're most certainly right.

I guess I just think Phil Simms is really, really dumb.

Good grief - they (pundits, fans, etc.) talk, EVERY YEAR, about needing to have momentum going into the playoffs (pick your sport). It's a bunch of crackers.

1) Look at how a coach like Popovitch uses time outs. He will call them on a 2-0 run if he's not happy with how his defense played on a possession. He uses timeouts for breathers more than for "momentum"

2) Look at the causes for those 10-0 runs. Is it really momentum or is it execution, being tired, or another team just hitting a few prayers? If you are executing well and had a couple of in and outers or turnovers you don't normally make and the other team hit a couple of tough threes, I'd say pretty strongly momentum isn't playing a part here.

3) Basketball just happens to be the highest scoring sport, so people assume momentum is happening all the time. Take a coin and flip it in the air 100 times. Provided everything is equal and you are not using a loaded coin, you are going to have a series where the coin comes up heads 8 times in a row. It doesn't mean the momentum of gravity is changing, it's random chance.

4) Barnwell does believe in SOME limited momentum, he just doesn't believe it can be used to explain ever 10-0 run, or blowout win. Especially in the NFL, people can misinterpret momentum for all kinds of things it isn't. A Super Bowl calibur team can get taken to the wood shed on any given Sunday. A couple of stupid turnovers, fatigue, poor execution and suddenly you are on the wrong end of a 45-10 beatdown where everyone is asking you how you are going to recover. In most cases, the good teams recover just fine.

I don't think the comparison to a series of coin flips is valid. Pure random tests will show clumped results which don't indicate momentum. To have momentum, there has to be something beyond purely random outcomes...which is where psychology comes in.

In fact, I would say that momentum is observed when an athlete lets the brain get in the way of muscle memory. Have any athlete think about their mechanics and performance goes down. Miss a few shots, or a few fairways and you think more about the next shot and screw up the mechanics. Make a few shots in a row and you stop thinking and let muscle memory take over. This ignores things like adrenaline surges when things are going well or despondency when things aren't going well.

I don't think the comparison to a series of coin flips is valid. Pure random tests will show clumped results which don't indicate momentum. To have momentum, there has to be something beyond purely random outcomes...which is where psychology comes in.

In fact, I would say that momentum is observed when an athlete lets the brain get in the way of muscle memory. Have any athlete think about their mechanics and performance goes down. Miss a few shots, or a few fairways and you think more about the next shot and screw up the mechanics. Make a few shots in a row and you stop thinking and let muscle memory take over. This ignores things like adrenaline surges when things are going well or despondency when things aren't going well.

MOST of the time, the random coin flip is what's going on though. There are 90+ possessions per team in a typical NBA game. A 10-0 run is at most 5 of those possessions (and usually 4 of them with three point shooting and three point plays)

In MOST scenarios, the better team will "recover" from the small group of bad possessions and win the basketball game, time out or no time out. I know coaches like to believe this isn't true, but if the Heat play the Kings at home, they'll win 99 of the 100 games without calling a time out. They are better, period. The Kings may have a nice 2 minute stretch in there where they go on a 12-2 run, but they are not going to hold on all game.

I say MOST. Is it possible a team just catches fire, has one of those games they cannot miss, while the other team gets tight and goes to pot? Of course it is. Those things do happen, but they don't happen often.

As for the comment hit a few shots and everything is good, miss a few and everything goes to hell. Well. . . not so much. Most of the time, the "hot hand" had a standard variance and his 5 straight makes will turn into 4 straight misses. The law of averages is a funny thing, it usually evens itself out.

I have severe questions about momentum inside of a game making an impact, momentum from the previous week or month? Good lord, no way. As someone else above said, that gets blown out of the water pretty much every year come playoff time.

I would agree that momentum is overrated and overdiscussed. But I don't think the concept can be ignored when dealing with humans. Human performance is shown to be easily altered by external and internal factors. Tell somebody that they're gifted and they'll perform better than if you tell the same person they have a learning difficulty. I think it's a given that when a team suffers a series of blows or mistakes they start questioning themselves and their performance could take a hit. On the flipside, those with a lucky streak start believing in it and perform better. this happens in other areas of human endeavor and so probably happens in sports. However there's tons of other factors that could just as easily outweigh this one.

There is definitely clutch. A player that can remain cool and perform under pressure would be clutch.

But for your terminology, I agree with you.

I've said for years that there is no 'clutch' only various levels of choking under pressure. The great players like the usual examples of Jeter and Jordan, do feel the pressure, they simply play at 95% (to pick a number) while those around them drop to 60-70%. Thus 'Clutch' is simply 'not choking as much as every one else out there.'

Harsh, but I've found that to be a much better explanation than that a player gets better under pressure. I simply don't think that has ever been true.

I think if you replaced momentum with "feeling confident" and "not feeling confident" it would make sense.