The Economics of Sport
  • Sports Economics
  • About
  • Workshop
  • Selected Publications
  • Book Reviews
  • A Primer on Gaelic Games
  • Upcoming Events
  • Media
  • Education
  • Resources & Links
  • Data

Choking: A Potential Predictor of Success

1/11/2019

 
By John Considine
Picture
This post started out as a question.  Could Milton Friedman and Leonard Savage have selected a better sporting example than billiards to illustrate their point about economic theory and its applications?  Billiards seems a very good choice to me.  The billiard table does not have the variability of a golf green.  There is no physical effort by an opponent to stop a player performing.  The question which I started with remains unanswered in my mind.  However, it lead to a few other questions.

Colleagues suggested that darts might be an alternative to billiards.  This suggestion took me to a Tinbergen Institute discussion paper titled "Incentives, Performance and Choking in Darts".  The paper has much to recommend it.  The paper finds that professional players do better than amateur and youth players.  It is somewhat related to the billiards illustration presented by Friedman and Savage paper.  However, the paper forced me to return to a neat 2017 Journal of Sports Economics paper by Mattie Toma.

Toma's paper examines the determinants of choking using shots from the free-throw line in basketball.  Free-throw line shots in basketball are not dissimilar to throwing darts.  Toma says "... college players destined to go pro choke dramatically more than do their counterparts who never make it to the professional level".  Choking might be a predictor of success!  Toma says, and here I'm paraphrasing, it could be because these college players care more about the outcome.

Under the heading "keywords", Toma lists "behavioral economics".  What do these findings bring to behavioral economics?  Behavioral economists frequently criticise the example of the expert billiard player used by Friedman (and Savage).  Richard Thaler devotes some time to the debate in Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics.  Thaler also discusses the literature on the "mistakes" made in drafting college players.  The discussion in the Toma paper makes it clear that the author is not suggesting that the incorrect players are drafted.  Instead, the author lists the limitations of the study as a guide to future professional careers and, more importantly, raises the potential that choking might be because of emotional investment in the sport.

Toma's paper, and the literature on choking in sport, raises issues for economics (including behavioral economics).  The literature attributes choking to situations where the player thinks too much.  Where the player engages in conscious thought about what they are about to do.  Choking arises because the player engages System 2 reflective type thinking (a classification found in some accounts of behavioral economics).  Performances are better where players rely on actions they have internalised and automated.  Intuitive System 1 type thinking does better than reflective System 2 type thinking.  Is this an anomaly for (behavioral) economics?


Comments are closed.

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013

    About

    This website was founded in July 2013.

    RSS Feed

    Categories

    All
    American Football
    Athletics
    Baseball
    Basketball
    Behavioural Economics
    Boxing
    Broadcasting
    Competitive Balance
    Cricket
    Cycling
    Darts
    David Butler
    Declan Jordan
    Drugs
    Ed Valentine
    Epl
    Esports
    Expenditure
    F1
    Fifa World Cup
    Finances
    Funding
    Gaa
    Gaelic Games
    Gambling
    Game Theory
    Gary Burns
    Geography
    Golf
    Greyhound Racing
    Guest Posts
    Horse Racing
    Impact Studies
    John Considine
    John Eakins
    League Of Ireland
    Location
    Media
    Mls
    Mma
    Olympics
    Participation
    Paul O'Sullivan
    Premier League
    Regulation
    Research
    Robbie Butler
    Rugby
    Simpsonomics
    Snooker
    Soccer
    Spatial Analysis
    Sporting Bodies
    Stephen Brosnan
    Swimming
    Taxation
    Teaching
    Technology
    Tennis
    Transfers
    Uefa
    Ufc
    World Cup
    Wwe

Related

The website is not formally affiliated to any institution and all of the entries represent the personal views and opinions of an individual contributor. The website operates on a not-for-profit basis. For this reason we decline all advertisement opportunities. 

Contact

To contact us email sportseconomics2013@gmail.com or find us on Twitter @SportEcon.