A Comprehensive Data Pipeline for Comparing the Effects of Momentum on Sports Leagues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Momentum has been a consistently studied aspect of sports science for decades. Among the established literature, there has, at times, been a discrepancy between conclusions. However, if momentum is indeed an actual phenomenon, it would affect all aspects of sports, from player evaluation to pre-game prediction and betting. Therefore, using momentum-based features that quantify a team’s linear trend of play, we develop a data pipeline that uses a small sample of recent games to assess teams’ quality of play and measure the predictive power of momentum-based features versus the predictive power of more traditional frequency-based features across several leagues using several machine learning techniques. More precisely, we use our pipeline to determine the differences in the predictive power of momentum-based features and standard statistical features for the National Hockey League (NHL), National Basketball Association (NBA), and five major first-division European football leagues. Our findings show little evidence that momentum has superior predictive power in the NBA. Still, we found some instances of the effects of momentum on the NHL that produced better pre-game predictors, whereas we view a similar trend in European football/soccer. Our results indicate that momentum-based features combined with frequency-based features could improve pre-game prediction models and that, in the future, momentum should be studied more from a feature/performance indicator point-of-view and less from the view of the dependence of sequential outcomes, thus attempting to distance momentum from the binary view of winning and losing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".