A bit off topic here, but speaking of coaching, Fleck consistently says that he does not believe in momentum. Do you think that he means that one play can change the trajectory of a game? So that what happened the previous play or previous 15 plays has nothing to do what happens the next play?
I am with Fleck on this one.
Momentum would dictate that if a shooter in basketball made three 3-pointers in a row, that the next attempt must be successful, since the shooter has "momentum". Or in football, if there are 3 successful plays in a row, the next play will also be successful due to "momentum". In behavioral finance, this is called the "hot-hand fallacy".
We all know that to be not true. Momentum, is a physical property.
However, there are studies out there that indicate that if a player or team has repeated success, that the emotional state may make is easier for the next play to be successful. This may be due to "stress hormones" being lessened, and some believe that there is a testosterone boost with continued success. What is comes down to is not really momentum, but "streakiness".
So, to me, what it really comes down to is a debate of the word momentum. I don't think people want to associate success with just being on a streak, that indicates luck is an important part of the equation, rather than skill. So people use momentum as a replacement.