Utah Jazz @ NY Knicks - 5:30 MST

[fishonjazz]

A special defensive play? I don't think I have ever seen one of those. Do you have an example?

Well defense is one way to stop a run. Getting points from the offense if your own team is another way.
And ya, I'm certain that teams can change what they are doing on defense to counter the offense if the opponent.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[One Brow]

And ya, I'm certain that teams can change what they are doing on defense to counter the offense if the opponent.

Well, that's true. I wish I had included the clause "or the game plan needed to change" on post #140 in this thread. I would be so much less embarrassed had I done that.

 

[Gameface]

A special defensive play? I don't think I have ever seen one of those. Do you have an example?

They use their special play dry erase board

 

[fishonjazz]

One special defensive play I can think of is hack a shaq.
I'm sure there are others.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[RRJazz]

Momentum is absolutely a thing. Runs can be stopped with a timeout, no doubt and not only thanks to tactical changes. Not only in basketball, but in all sports. Soccer: since they don't have timeouts, many times players fake injury to stop the run of play, to try and get the opponent to cool down. Tennis and the infamous calls for medical attention. Rain delays completely changing the outcome of any game.

Any stoppage: quarter, halftime, boxing round, etc. becomes a roller-coaster because momentum is subject to change, the longer the stoppage, the bigger the chances it is stopped and even swapped to the opponent.

 

[One Brow]

Momentum is absolutely a thing. Runs can be stopped with a timeout, ...

I completely grant the belief in momentum, and being able to interrupt it, is a thing. However, whenever I see people trying to study it, the evidence for it proves difficult to find.

 

[MeloTheJazzKiller]

It's a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich. It's ubiquitous in New York, and I've been trying to determine how big of a fake Melothejk is. Dude's def not from NYC, just had to make sure. I mean, a simple google search would have helped him maintain the facade:

Oh, this is an internet classic.

Hey, Columbo, turn in your raincoat.

Let's analyze what this wannabee Columbo is saying: I come here and fake that I am from NY. Uhh, why? Why do I know everything about the Knicks, clearly my posts express a love for the team....yet I am from Guam or something.

Hey, kid, you know the internet enables people from New York to chat with people from Utah! Imagine that. Turn in your ticket to the Pony Express, Columbo. There's a new thing called internet.

 

[infection]

I completely grant the belief in momentum, and being able to interrupt it, is a thing. However, whenever I see people trying to study it, the evidence for it proves difficult to find.

The evidence for psychodynamic psychotherapy is also difficult to find, mostly because it's less concrete in what you're actually measuring, just as it's harder to standardize objective measures for music, or paints, or movies, etc., but the eyeball often recognizes something that is very difficult to automatize. A better question to ask would be: how would you go about measuring momentum?

 

[UB]

Oh, this is an internet classic.

Hey, Columbo, turn in your raincoat.

Let's analyze what this wannabee Columbo is saying: I come here and fake that I am from NY. Uhh, why? Why do I know everything about the Knicks, clearly my posts express a love for the team....yet I am from Guam or something.

Hey, kid, you know the internet enables people from New York to chat with people from Utah! Imagine that. Turn in your ticket to the Pony Express, Columbo. There's a new thing called internet.

So obvious...you got exposed bro.

 

[One Brow]

A better question to ask would be: how would you go about measuring momentum?

I agree. Would it be the probability of getting the next field goal after getting two, or the next point after getting 5-10?

I do recall there was one study that looked for evidence of a "hot hand" for shooters, but did not find any such evidence.

 

[UB]

The evidence for psychodynamic psychotherapy is also difficult to find, mostly because it's less concrete in what you're actually measuring, just as it's harder to standardize objective measures for music, or paints, or movies, etc., but the eyeball often recognizes something that is very difficult to automatize. A better question to ask would be: how would you go about measuring momentum?

You should have my job. You say this stuff good. I always say something like "The kind of change we endeavor to see in our patients is not measurable with formalized assessments. It's ineffable. It takes volumes to put it into words adequately. Which makes sense since patients spend an hour each week with us over the course of months and years. That kind of change is difficult to put into words; it's almost a betrayal to the process to do so. Put briefly, though, one could say treatment worked because one feels content, more insightful, more compassionate. Even more briefly, one "knows" oneself."

But I ran out of breath just typing that.

I think the same goes for "momentum." You know it's happening. Sure, we could run correlational analyses and try to root out the data to support or deny this feeling; and we'd likely run into boring, dry conclusions. But this feeling of momentum comes from the same place that motivates us to care about this stupid game in the first place. After all, it's just 5 dudes running around trying to stop 5 other arbitrarily marked dudes from placing a ball through a hoop.

 

[Jazzta]

Last night might be the best I have ever seen KK look. I love her with her hair up. And down. And bald probably but especially with her hair up

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Would poke.

 

[infection]

I agree. Would it be the probability of getting the next field goal after getting two, or the next point after getting 5-10?

I do recall there was one study that looked for evidence of a "hot hand" for shooters, but did not find any such evidence.

I think this goes down to a very similar thing as the hot hand theory. The problem with that, though, is that it fails to take in to consideration the particular dynamics of a game or situation. Studying the hot hand theory would just aggregate all data to see if there are patterns, but you're not just simply wanting to know if making one shot increases the likelihood of making another, but you want to isolate actual instances where the setting of the game would dictate a particular flow. For instance, there's often a palpable feeling during a game of what may be pivotal events, but watching that devoid of any understanding of the psychology of the given game it may not appear significant at all.

You should have my job. You say this stuff good. I always say something like "The kind of change we endeavor to see in our patients is not measurable with formalized assessments. It's ineffable. It takes volumes to put it into words adequately. Which makes sense since patients spend an hour each week with us over the course of months and years. That kind of change is difficult to put into words; it's almost a betrayal to the process to do so. Put briefly, though, one could say treatment worked because one feels content, more insightful, more compassionate. Even more briefly, one "knows" oneself."

But I ran out of breath just typing that.

I think the same goes for "momentum." You know it's happening. Sure, we could run correlational analyses and try to root out the data to support or deny this feeling; and we'd likely run into boring, dry conclusions. But this feeling of momentum comes from the same place that motivates us to care about this stupid game in the first place. After all, it's just 5 dudes running around trying to stop 5 other arbitrarily marked dudes from placing a ball through a hoop.

What do you do? Particularly with therapy, it's hard because there's this huge dogmatic push for being "evidenced-based," and we tend to view evidence as some type of approval that bestows some divine power into something. For instance, FDA approval for medications is treated as if something becomes effective when the FDA has an indication for it, and if the FDA doesn't have an indication for it, then it doesn't help (if the tree falls in the forest and nobody heard it, then it never happened). In therapy, I find it funny because a lot of people (particularly younger generations) are on a high horse about being "evidence-based" (as opposed to those "morons" who don't understand evidence-based practice), and thus malign something like psychodynamic psychotherapy because it appears it "doesn't work" because we can't demonstrate good data for it. In reality, it's an issue of measurement. We're trying to fit problems into particular boxes by giving it a label like "depression" and then using a measure of depression to see if there's evidence, whereas many issues in psychodynamic psychotherapy that you're working on may cause symptoms of distress and aren't simply "depression," but are nevertheless important to the individual, so because the "evidence base" doesn't show psychodynamic psychotherapy showing being effective for "treating" what we would call "depression" [or at least not treating the number on a depression rating scale], we then just conclude "it doesn't work!"

It's like trying to measure Rudy's defensive impact with a rule or a wrist-watch.

Bottom line: evidence isn't proof and vice versa.

 

[UB]

I think this goes down to a very similar thing as the hot hand theory. The problem with that, though, is that it fails to take in to consideration the particular dynamics of a game or situation. Studying the hot hand theory would just aggregate all data to see if there are patterns, but you're not just simply wanting to know if making one shot increases the likelihood of making another, but you want to isolate actual instances where the setting of the game would dictate a particular flow. For instance, there's often a palpable feeling during a game of what may be pivotal events, but watching that devoid of any understanding of the psychology of the given game it may not appear significant at all.

What do you do? Particularly with therapy, it's hard because there's this huge dogmatic push for being "evidenced-based," and we tend to view evidence as some type of approval that bestows some divine power into something. For instance, FDA approval for medications is treated as if something becomes effective when the FDA has an indication for it, and if the FDA doesn't have an indication for it, then it doesn't help (if the tree falls in the forest and nobody heard it, then it never happened). In therapy, I find it funny because a lot of people (particularly younger generations) are on a high horse about being "evidence-based" (as opposed to those "morons" who don't understand evidence-based practice), and thus malign something like psychodynamic psychotherapy because it appears it "doesn't work" because we can't demonstrate good data for it. In reality, it's an issue of measurement. We're trying to fit problems into particular boxes by giving it a label like "depression" and then using a measure of depression to see if there's evidence, whereas many issues in psychodynamic psychotherapy that you're working on may cause symptoms of distress and aren't simply "depression," but are nevertheless important to the individual, so because the "evidence base" doesn't show psychodynamic psychotherapy showing being effective for "treating" what we would call "depression" [or at least not treating the number on a depression rating scale], we then just conclude "it doesn't work!"

It's like trying to measure Rudy's defensive impact with a rule or a wrist-watch.

Bottom line: evidence isn't proof and vice versa.

I'm a psychologist whose orientation at its base is psychodynamic but I've adapted to managed care settings by learning to treat symptoms via CBT and motivational interviewing. I'm most inspired by Carl Rogers and Viktor Frankl, but honestly, it was Robin Williams' role in "Good Will Hunting" that blew my ****ing mind about the immense and simple power of a meaningful relationship to change a person. This relationship is neither purely friendly and good nor adversarial and punitive: it's complex, a mix of hard truths and validating expressions. It's real. I'm dead serious, that movie is the reason I wanted to become a psychologist. And now I'm doing what I have always wanted, albeit in NYC and not Boston like that movie is based in, working with patients from really tough backgrounds in a large city hospital in Manhattan.

 

[infection]

I'm a psychologist whose orientation at its base is psychodynamic but I've adapted to managed care settings by learning to treat symptoms via CBT and motivational interviewing. I'm most inspired by Carl Rogers and Viktor Frankl, but honestly, it was Robin Williams' role in "Good Will Hunting" that blew my ****ing mind about the immense and simple power of a meaningful relationship to change a person. This relationship is neither purely friendly and good nor adversarial and punitive: it's complex, a mix of hard truths and validating expressions. It's real. I'm dead serious, that movie is the reason I wanted to become a psychologist. And now I'm doing what I have always wanted, albeit in NYC and not Boston like that movie is based in, working with patients from really tough backgrounds in a large city hospital in Manhattan.

Nice. Agree with most. I'm a psychiatrist but in Utah. Nobody here does psychodynamic psychotherapy. Hell, nobody really does CBT but everyone says they do. It's challenging because I get a lot of patients whose issue is much deeper than "depression" or "anxiety" and is deeper than anything superficial that you'd do in CBT, and I really have nowhere to refer because the on paper answer is "yeah, do therapy" and check a box that isn't addressing the issue, and the issue isn't a quick fix, but reimbursement has caused us to believe that time-limited CBT is really the cure-all.

 

[One Brow]

For instance, there's often a palpable feeling during a game of what may be pivotal events, but watching that devoid of any understanding of the psychology of the given game it may not appear significant at all.

What is a palpable feeling may be apparent to different fans at different times, and different still to players. The whole point of momentum is that it is supposed to make it more likely you will score next, or score more actively in the next few minutes, etc. If that is not true, and teams with momentum are no more likely to score than teams without, why would you call a timeout to interrupt it?

 

[infection]

What is a palpable feeling may be apparent to different fans at different times, and different still to players. The whole point of momentum is that it is supposed to make it more likely you will score next, or score more actively in the next few minutes, etc. If that is not true, and teams with momentum are no more likely to score than teams without, why would you call a timeout to interrupt it?

No, I'm saying that looking at the dynamics that make a high pressure situation may be more specific. For instance, the middle of the second quarter, though there can be momentum, isn't as big as, say, making a run to rally back mid-way through the 4th. I think a better analogy is home court advantage. Why are teams performing better at home than on the road? That's easier to measure because it's a pure comparison of W/L. "Momentum" is only a component of a game, not a particular measurable.

 

[MeloTheJazzKiller]

I'm dead serious, GOOD WILL HUNTING is the reason I wanted to become a psychologist.

My God, I was right about you. Took but one post and I was able to instantly figure you out.

You say you watched GOOD WILL HUNTING -- a fictional movie, for Christ's sake -- and it made you want to be a psychologist. I said earlier you want to be a detective, a Columbo. Clearly you saw a few episodes on the television and said, "Mommy, when I grow up I want to be a detective! I want to wear a raincoat and prove a guy on a Utah Jazz forum is not from New York. Mommy, can you tell Santa to bring me a raincoat for Christmas this year?"

Seriously, you watched a fictional movie and wanted to be that? What are you 12? Do you want to be Spiderman, too?

 

[One Brow]

"Momentum" is only a component of a game, not a particular measurable.

Either momentum has a measurable outcome, in terms of scoring, or it does not. If the former, the outcome can be measured. If the latter, there is no need to take actions based on it.

I certainly don't deny the feeling of the Jazz having moment at critical parts of the game. For me, I have not seen a correlation between that feeling and the Jazz continuing to score. Even when it seems like they have momentum, the opponent often breaks it with couple of quick scores of their own. The feeling is part of being an interested observer, but that doesn't mean it is in response to a real thing.

 

[UB]

Nice. Agree with most. I'm a psychiatrist but in Utah. Nobody here does psychodynamic psychotherapy. Hell, nobody really does CBT but everyone says they do. It's challenging because I get a lot of patients whose issue is much deeper than "depression" or "anxiety" and is deeper than anything superficial that you'd do in CBT, and I really have nowhere to refer because the on paper answer is "yeah, do therapy" and check a box that isn't addressing the issue, and the issue isn't a quick fix, but reimbursement has caused us to believe that time-limited CBT is really the cure-all.

That’s why I’m interested in psychotherapy research that identifies the factors of different treatments than just CBT. I went to a Grand Rounds at NYU last month with a bunch of psychiatrists researching psychodynamic psychotherapy. They made a good point that we should have embraced research rather run shunned it 50 years ago. We’d know better what those factors are and have the “evidence” to justify to insurance companies, as CBT does today.