Psychology of blowing leads in College and NBA basketball

[STEVEHOLT]

This should seriously be a study by some medical institution. It amazes me how this works. As a gambling man, LIVE BETTING nearly universally favors the team who is behind...and it is right to do so.

How is it that an early to mid 20 point lead in the NBA almost always gets reduced significantly during at least one run throughout the remainder of the game? Why don't teams with 20 point leads extend them to 30 points as often as the 20 point lead is cut to 10 points or less? I mean, it's not like the teams switch uniforms or players.

The obvious culprit is intensity. Hard for the team up big to maintain the intensity to keep or extend the lead. But most teams and most games? But why is the team down 20 NOT equally susceptible to the threat of a let down...as they feel they may just not have it that night.

May sound nerdy but i find it fascinating that it's as predictable as it is. Just this Saturday we were watching the Rocket's and Thunder. When Houston got up 26 points, I turned to my wife and said, "you can bet the house that at some point in this game, the Rocket's are fighting to maintain that lead." And of course, i was right, in fact they lost...

Then tonight we have the Duke / Louisville game. and every single night more often than not. its just so weird.

 

[JLine]

Good post. Would be an intriguing study, for sure. No way JB ever blows a 23 point lead like that. Mack just let his team get massacred over and over. All they had to do was not turn the ball over, and burn clock. Credit to Duke for speeding them up, rattling them, and forcing mistakes. You could see early in the comeback that LVille lost their mind. All confidence was gone. Seems like when having a big lead, that pressure builds the closer the score gets.

 

[ClamOtto]

I agree completely. A lot of conventional wisdom about sports is wrong. Like the idea that beating a team three times in a season is hard - the reality is that if you beat the team twice, you're probably the better team and are likely to win the third time. i would think the same logic would apply in-game. If you're up 20, you're probably the better team (at least that night, in that venue). So it should be more likely you extend the lead rather than give it up. But it doesn't seem to work that way, unless the teams are clearly not on the same level (like Duke vs. Stetson). I'd be curious if there is any data on how often a team with a 15+ point second half lead wins by 20 or more vs. winning by less than 5 (or losing).

 

[richmondcuse03]

I’d love to see a study. I think we tend to remember the outliers and big comebacks more than the games that fluctuate from a 20 point game to 12 and then back up to 17.

But I will admit it’s a fascinating topic that I’ve always been interested in too. And would love to see the actual numbers because I tend to believe with OP that there’s some “intensity” factor at play.

 

[upperdeck]

teams most game with a vegas odds of under 10.. getting to 20 means one team played better or one worse, or both teams played out of their norm . its not surprising that it levels back off if both teams just keeping playing straight up.. no difference than a team that shots 40% from 3 starts 8 for 10 and then goes 1-10 the 2nd half..

JB understands it and thats why we stop playing the game straight up and try to wind the clock. you make make 75% of the Fts and dont throw the ball away, limit other teams 3's and they cant get back into the game.

 

[Brooky03]

Regression to the mean

 

[SU94]

Good post. Would be an intriguing study, for sure. No way JB ever blows a 23 point lead like that. Mack just let his team get massacred over and over. All they had to do was not turn the ball over, and burn clock. Credit to Duke for speeding them up, rattling them, and forcing mistakes. You could see early in the comeback that LVille lost their mind. All confidence was gone. Seems like when having a big lead, that pressure builds the closer the score gets.

I am not a fan of Mack, who appears to be a bit too righteous for my taste (from afar, granted!). I enjoyed the comeback and was shocked by how little coaching Mack seemed to be doing, outside of calling weak timeouts and imploring his Cardinals to rebound better (that was the primary message per Alison Williams IIRC). "Hey coach, how do we break that press?" That loss falls solely on Mack.

 

[JLine]

I am not a fan of Mack, who appears to be a bit too righteous for my taste (from afar, granted!). I enjoyed the comeback and was shocked by how little coaching Mack seemed to be doing, outside of calling weak timeouts and imploring his Cardinals to rebound better (that was the primary message per Alison Williams IIRC). "Hey coach, how do we break that press?" That loss falls solely on Mack.

They even turned it over once they broke the press. Simply reminding them that they don’t have to pass the ball would have helped. They were making errant passes that weren’t open when they could have just kept their dribble. Picking up their dribble forcing them into committing turnovers and said unopen errant passes. Did they not have a PG to dribble out the shot clock? Just bizarre coaching.

 

[ClamOtto]

Regression to the mean

Too small a sample size (less than a half of basketball) to expect that to kick in regularly.

 

[Brooky03]

Too small a sample size (less than a half of basketball) to expect that to kick in regularly.

Debatable

 

[NKR1978]

Good post. Would be an intriguing study, for sure. No way JB ever blows a 23 point lead like that. Mack just let his team get massacred over and over. All they had to do was not turn the ball over, and burn clock. Credit to Duke for speeding them up, rattling them, and forcing mistakes. You could see early in the comeback that LVille lost their mind. All confidence was gone. Seems like when having a big lead, that pressure builds the closer the score gets.

2008 NIT loss to UMass. The 2nd time we lost to UMass in the Dome that season. Think we were up 23 at one point.

 

[Marty McFly]

Momentum, and emotion are the 'swing' variables in sports that often overcome and transcend the baseline variables: talent, coaching, venue, etc.

 

[BuffOrange]

I’d love to see a study. I think we tend to remember the outliers and big comebacks more than the games that fluctuate from a 20 point game to 12 and then back up to 17.

But I will admit it’s a fascinating topic that I’ve always been interested in too. And would love to see the actual numbers because I tend to believe with OP that there’s some “intensity” factor at play.

Could be a Freakenomics episode. The live betting lines that OP mentioned pretty much tells you what a good study would - otherwise there'd be easy $ in hammering the team that's way up.

Doubly frustrating when announcers always act so surprised/excited when 18 gets down to 7. I am always more surprised when the flogging never stops, like Nova v Oklahoma.

 

[DeGrozz]

This isn't the exact study you are suggesting -- but it is kind of close. One of the behavioral economists (maybe Malcom Gladwell) took a look at high level athletes and their performances. I think his determination was that the 'better' you were at a sport, the more you were driven by your hate to lose instead of your desire to win.

He pulled up a bunch of stats about how Kobe was actually a better performer when his team was losing in the fourth quarter than when his team was winning. I could see this having a broader impact on situations like OP suggests, all things considered.

 

[JLine]

2008 NIT loss to UMass. The 2nd time we lost to UMass in the Dome that season. Think we were up 23 at one point.

Good call. 19 at half, and up 17 with 8 left. If any Boeheim team could pull that off, it’s 2008.

 

[NKR1978]

Good call. 19 at half, and up 17 with 8 left. If any Boeheim team could pull that off, it’s 2008.

The 2013 BET final against Louisville was bad too, but I think at that point it was more a combination of us just hitting a wall after an emotional Georgetown OT win, UL being the best team in the country, and the refs absolutely hosing us.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Could be a Freakenomics episode. The live betting lines that OP mentioned pretty much tells you what a good study would - otherwise there'd be easy $ in hammering the team that's way up.

Doubly frustrating when announcers always act so surprised/excited when 18 gets down to 7. I am always more surprised when the flogging never stops, like Nova v Oklahoma.

This is exactly what I’m talking about .. nova extending their lead was frankly shocking ...why is this so rare as to be an instance that readily sticks out ? It’s as if some NBA Jams “computer assist” is at work behind the scenes

 

[Col. Bleep]

The 2013 BET final against Louisville was bad too, but I think at that point it was more a combination of us just hitting a wall after an emotional Georgetown OT win, UL being the best team in the country, and the refs absolutely hosing us.

That was the worst and fastest SU collapse ever.

But another classic was the Final Four team in '75.
Up 21 at halftime in Manley against West Virginia on national tv (when that phrase actually meant a lot)...and lost the game.

 

[dollarbill44]

2008 NIT loss to UMass. The 2nd time we lost to UMass in the Dome that season. Think we were up 23 at one point.

That was such an awful collapse.

 

[tbonezone]

you play on your toes all game and build a big lead... then finish on your toes and not on your heels. once the other team basically concedes then dribble out. be gracious in victory or in defeat. no hotdogging.