PDA

View Full Version : Do you think the "hot hand" exists?



lakers4sho
02-25-2013, 12:43 AM
Basketball players who make several baskets in succession are described as having a "hot hand". Do you believe such phenomenon exists?

I already have my own opinion and currently in the process of crunching some numbers but Id like to know what you guys think.

Nick O
02-25-2013, 12:45 AM
most people who play basketball can agree it exists.. sometimes you just get in a rhythm and your shot feels smoother it feels better.. it for sure exists imo ...

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 12:46 AM
No, just statistical variation. Is heads "hot" when you are flipping a coin.

topdog
02-25-2013, 12:48 AM
There's such a thing as "being in rhythm" i.e. your jump shot is clicking at a particular moment, game or day. Every shooter has days when their shot is more on or off for one reason or another most especially the flick of the wrist.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 12:50 AM
most people who play basketball can agree it exists.. sometimes you just get in a rhythm and your shot feels smoother it feels better.. it for sure exists imo ...

I played basketball for eleven years. I disagree.

KnickNyKnick
02-25-2013, 12:51 AM
the hot hand definitly exists. when i play ball, sometimes it feels like i cant miss.

JNoel
02-25-2013, 12:52 AM
Mcgrady

*Superman*
02-25-2013, 12:54 AM
I played basketball for eleven years. I disagree.

Maybe you weren't good. :shrug:

b@llhog24
02-25-2013, 12:56 AM
Iirc. There was a thread on this before, and I think they had actual data to disprove the theory.

seikou8
02-25-2013, 12:58 AM
Maybe you weren't good. :shrug:

:laugh2:

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 12:59 AM
Maybe you weren't good. :shrug:

I was 14/14 one game. I don't believe the hot hand exists and I didn't when that occured either.

It's statistical variation.

heyman321
02-25-2013, 01:00 AM
Iirc. There was a thread on this before, and I think they had actual data to disprove the theory.

I remember seeing it to. Did it account for "hot hand" being a psychological feeling that improves confidence, or was it just balancing out to a normal curve?

JNoel
02-25-2013, 01:00 AM
I scored 51 in a game one time, no lie.

BKLYNpigeon
02-25-2013, 01:04 AM
Yes... the NBA is a Mental game as well.

Lakers + Giants
02-25-2013, 01:07 AM
Last week I ****ed around and got a triple double. . .

Jeffy25
02-25-2013, 01:07 AM
As a former player, you def get into a rhythm.

But I think confidence helps too.


I don't think it helps you make future baskets or anything.

Lakers + Giants
02-25-2013, 01:08 AM
As a former player, you def get into a rhythm.

But I think confidence helps too.


I don't think it helps you make future baskets or anything.

:speechless:

Never thought I'd see you in the NBA forum.

bholly
02-25-2013, 01:10 AM
Iirc. There was a thread on this before, and I think they had actual data to disprove the theory.

this. it's been studied (ie rigorous scientific studies) a few times. it doesn't exist, or at least there's no statistically significant evidence of it.

bholly
02-25-2013, 01:12 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot-hand_fallacy

http://www.psych.cornell.edu/sec/pubPeople/tdg1/Gilo.Vallone.Tversky.pdf

Jeffy25
02-25-2013, 01:13 AM
:speechless:

Never thought I'd see you in the NBA forum.

I like the NBA, I just don't like the discussions that exist in here. I comment here and there :)

*Superman*
02-25-2013, 01:13 AM
I was 14/14 one game. I don't believe the hot hand exists and I didn't when that occured either.

It's statistical variation.

I was just kidding nothing personal ;)

Statistically speaking, there might not be any evidence, but when playing the game, I've felt it before and I'm sure many great players would agree also. It's just a matter of opinion though whether you believe in it or not. But it should increase your confidence in shooting the next shot, at least.

Bishnoff
02-25-2013, 01:18 AM
Yes, it does exist. I've experienced it myself, and not just from Basketball. It applies to all forms of physical competition to some degree.

To say that it doesn't exist, means that you're ruling out the mental aspect of any sport. When you're confident in your own ability you will perform better.

ThaDubs
02-25-2013, 01:18 AM
I was 14/14 one game.

Ooooooooooookay.

*Superman*
02-25-2013, 01:19 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot-hand_fallacy

http://www.psych.cornell.edu/sec/pubPeople/tdg1/Gilo.Vallone.Tversky.pdf

I counter with this evidence.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=400278550

ManRam
02-25-2013, 01:22 AM
I think to an extent, yeah. But it's usually overblown.

But it's gonna balance out more often than not. But there is certainly a grove and a rhythm players can get in. The probably usually arises when that "hot hand" forgets that he has 4 teammates.

SMH!
02-25-2013, 01:26 AM
Maybe you weren't good. :shrug:

:clap::laugh::laugh:

GREATNESS ONE
02-25-2013, 01:30 AM
Yup, but more a mental aspect of the game that most people consider "the hot hand"

Hawkeye15
02-25-2013, 01:31 AM
uh, yeah it exists. I experienced it many times.

bholly
02-25-2013, 01:38 AM
I counter with this evidence.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=400278550

I'm not sure what in that is supposed to be counter-evidence, but whatever it is the whole basis of rigorous statistical investigation is that one example isn't evidence of really anything.

Chacarron
02-25-2013, 01:57 AM
I definitely think it exists, I have felt it a few times. This thread also reminded me of this college game I watched earlier this month where this dude went nuts at the end of the 4th, making shot after shot, to take the game into OT. I had never seen anything like it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC9R0yMXieI

mosesedan
02-25-2013, 01:57 AM
yess it exists, some games youre cold and you can't get a feel of the rim, other games you feel like you and the rim are one

Nick O
02-25-2013, 01:58 AM
im pretty sure most people who play can agree that sometimes your shot feels better than other nights.. sometimes it feels off sometimes it feels on.. thats kinda the same thing... just it changes in the course of the game.. i think it happens sometimes.. if a guy is making shots keep goin to him

Nick O
02-25-2013, 01:58 AM
but im probably wrong.. that one dude went 14/14 once.. dont wanna **** with him...

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 02:13 AM
but im probably wrong.. that one dude went 14/14 once.. dont wanna **** with him...


And all the statistical evidence against the "hot hand." I was just suggesting you guys are biased because some days you were better than normal.

maddBat
02-25-2013, 02:15 AM
so if ur saying theres no "hot hand". is there no "cold hand"? see dwill. lol

tr3ymill3r
02-25-2013, 02:21 AM
Anybody who has ever played basketball knows that it exists. You begin to shoot the ball with a lot more confidence. Ray Allen could be 0 for 1000 from behind the arc and I guarantee you he thinks the next shot is going in. If anyone doesn't think the hot hand exists or being in the zone, please go away, you know nothing about sports.

mvb815
02-25-2013, 02:26 AM
i can tell when i hit my zone, because after the 3rd-4th shot in a row drops i subconsciously smirk

confidence is everything in basketball, it's the reason a lot of good college players don't make it in the nba

tredigs
02-25-2013, 02:30 AM
For those pointing to the studies (have not read them) and say being hot doesn't exist, by that same token are you also implying that you can't be "off"? I'm a little too drained to actually look into those links right now and see how they studied this, but I can't imagine how this is even debatable? When you're really dialed in and feeling good you're going to be performing better and making more shots. I can get this way playing ping pong with my roommates for ****s sake. It's not just when we're playing ball; I will definitely look at those studies tomorrow, because through years of personal studies, I can confidently say they are screwing up the experiment in some way.

heyman321
02-25-2013, 03:01 AM
Well I certainly know the "cold hand" exists for lots of players on the Raptors.

VinceCarter
02-25-2013, 03:23 AM
No, just statistical variation. Is heads "hot" when you are flipping a coin.

Coins vs humans is a terrible analogy lol

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 03:25 AM
For those pointing to the studies (have not read them) and say being hot doesn't exist, by that same token are you also implying that you can't be "off"? I'm a little too drained to actually look into those links right now and see how they studied this, but I can't imagine how this is even debatable? When you're really dialed in and feeling good you're going to be performing better and making more shots. I can get this way playing ping pong with my roommates for ****s sake. It's not just when we're playing ball; I will definitely look at those studies tomorrow, because through years of personal studies, I can confidently say they are screwing up the experiment in some way.

It doesn't matter at what point you are in your shot and how many you have made, it is equally likely it goes in as it doesn't based on your average.

It's why the coin toss analogy is apt.

BALLER R
02-25-2013, 03:29 AM
Yes everyone that plays basketball knows this. Especially if your a shooter. But you get hot and it's like you can't miss there's times your form might be off or you released it a lil too quick but it still goes in.

This isn't something that statistics will show you because I think it's more mental than physical.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 03:34 AM
Yes everyone that plays basketball knows this. Especially if your a shooter. But you get hot and it's like you can't miss there's times your form might be off or you released it a lil too quick but it still goes in.

This isn't something that statistics will show you because I think it's more mental than physical.

Anything that we can see can be measured. Anything we can measure, can be evaluated.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 03:35 AM
In relation to basketball the hot hand is the belief that a player is more likely to make their next shot given that they have made the previous two or three shots in a row.[citation needed] However research has shown that a player's shots are each independent in and of themselves, meaning that the chance that an athlete would make a shot (e.g., a free throw) was about the same regardless of whether the athlete made or missed one or more similar shots.[6] According to game theory, when an ideal player shoots a basketball he hits about 50% of his shots[disputed – discuss]. When he shoots 20 shots he will have a number of hits and misses that are a chance sequence. People that see chance sequences with lumps of hits and misses will say that he is shooting in streaks (having hot or cold hands) when the player actually is not.

The NBA is a place where people tend to place a lot of emphasis on streaks. A study by Koehler, J. J. & Conley C. A. was conducted to examine the hot hand myth in professional basketball. In this study the researchers examined film from the NBA shooting contests from 1994 - 1997. Through studying the film of the contests the researchers hoped to find evidence of sequential dependency within each shooter across all shots. We also searched for sequential dependencies within each shooter per set of 25 continuous shots, and employed a variety of novel techniques for isolating hot performance.[6] To examine the data they acquired from the review of film from the 3-point contests and use a technique called a runs analysis, which examined the streakiness of each individual player.[6] A run is categorized as one or more hits and misses. Thus the sequence HHHHH has one run and the sequence HMHMH has five runs.[6] According to the hot hand a player should have very few run and instead their makes and misses should be in clusters. In their research there were only two players who had a significantly smaller amount of runs then expected by chance. No shooter had significantly more runs than would be expected by chance. About half of the shooters (12 of 23 = 52%) had fewer runs than expected, and about half (11 of 23 = 48%) had more runs than expected.[6] The researchers also compare the shooters makes and misses. The data came be more in accordance with chance than the hot hand. Through their analysis of the data the conclusion was draw that there was nothing that supported the hot hand.

In his 1991 book How We Know What Isn't So, Thomas Gilovich details his empirical investigation of the hot hand fallacy. By analyzing the shooting data of a professional basketball team over the course of a year, he discovered that a player’s performance on a shot is independent of his performance on the previous shot. This result is not expected if there is such a thing as a “hot hand”. The result holds when considering players' free throw records, in which things such as defensive pressure and difficulty of the shot are constant. The result also holds when the definition of hot hand is changed to account for a player’s ability to predict the outcome of his next shot.

From wiki - Hot Hand Fallacy

shep33
02-25-2013, 03:45 AM
Having a "hot hand" is clinically known as Mike Jamesitis.

Hawkeye15
02-25-2013, 03:48 AM
Guppyfighter, did you ever play ball?

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 03:49 AM
Guppyfighter, did you ever play ball?

Yes, of course. I was a jock in school. I did five different sports. I don't let anecdotal evidence shape how I view reality though.

Hawkeye15
02-25-2013, 03:50 AM
Yes, of course. I was a jock in school. I did five different sports. I don't let anecdotal evidence shape how I view reality though.

then despite your stats (you know I am a stat guy), mentality comes into play as a shooter/scorer, period. You can not possibly deny this. When your confidence level is at an all time high, shots fall more.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 03:52 AM
then despite your stats (you know I am a stat guy), mentality comes into play as a shooter/scorer, period. You can not possibly deny this. When your confidence level is at an all time high, shots fall more.

I don't think confidence has an affect on anything either. In 1970, there was a self confidence movement. The goal was to raise confidence. They did that, there was no increase in academic ability. Now, in contrast, Japan has very low self-esteem, but consistently produce high achieving students.

Derek Brink
02-25-2013, 03:52 AM
lol yes, have you never played basketball or sports in general? Sometimes you just get locked in.

Raps18-19 Champ
02-25-2013, 03:53 AM
As a former player, you def get into a rhythm.

But I think confidence helps too.


I don't think it helps you make future baskets or anything.

This.

Hawkeye15
02-25-2013, 03:56 AM
I don't think confidence has an affect on anything either. In 1970, there was a self confidence movement. The goal was to raise confidence. They did that, there was no increase in academic ability. Now, in contrast, Japan has very low self-esteem, but consistently produce high achieving students.

what on earth does any of that mean? I am talking about having a feeling in your step and confidence when shooting a basketall that is undeniable, no matter what stats you throw at me.

I am starting to think you were a big man that didn't live on the perimeter, like I did. The "hot hand" is for sure a real thing, whether you think so or not.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 03:59 AM
what on earth does any of that mean? I am talking about having a feeling in your step and confidence when shooting a basketall that is undeniable, no matter what stats you throw at me.

I am starting to think you were a big man that didn't live on the perimeter, like I did. The "hot hand" is for sure a real thing, whether you think so or not.


Nah, I played the two. And I was a cocky mother****er who expected everything to go in. During games I didn't believe in close games being high variation and that you could will your team to victory. But after the game I knew that was false even though most players don't think that's true.

I only believe things with a good amount of evidence. If it is true, it will show up in statistics.

mdm692
02-25-2013, 04:03 AM
Michael Beasley. That is all. He has his streak ok 10-15 games where he throws up airball after airball and then he has a a beast game like the one vs the Lakers.
I don't think you can measure it or put it into stats though. You can say whatever you want and bring in stats but usually when you're off you get nervous which leads to your form being wrong or maybe the ball slipping or something along those lines. While it is possible for those things to occur at any given time, when you keep your composure(high confidence in your ability) physically you tend to have a better form. Devotion to your craft has also be taken into consideration because the Ray Allen's and Nash's of the world are so good at their craft(shooting) that they are basically always with a hot hand.

Derek Brink
02-25-2013, 05:24 AM
I don't think confidence has an affect on anything either. In 1970, there was a self confidence movement. The goal was to raise confidence. They did that, there was no increase in academic ability. Now, in contrast, Japan has very low self-esteem, but consistently produce high achieving students.


lol wtf? You are seriously trying to argue being confident has no affect on whether you will be successful or not?

Alayla
02-25-2013, 08:30 AM
I dont believe it does but i believe the thought does represent something based in truth.
Theres no such thing as the hot hand in the sense people just become better at given moments but.

I do believe after hitting a few buckets in a row it can really aide you confidence and confidence helps you shoot better and drive more aggressively.

A bit of a bail out answer but thats how i feel about it.

GunFactor187
02-25-2013, 08:35 AM
Aka Muscle Memory.

Alayla
02-25-2013, 08:36 AM
Nah, I played the two. And I was a cocky mother****er who expected everything to go in. During games I didn't believe in close games being high variation and that you could will your team to victory. But after the game I knew that was false even though most players don't think that's true.

I only believe things with a good amount of evidence. If it is true, it will show up in statistics.

1. Have you ever heard of a subconscious you can consciously think you are the greatest player ever but subconsciously know you suck also confidence is only half of it you still have to be physically capable to some extent.

2. Science like anything is based on faith and thereby is flawed by definition nothing will ever be an absolute truth.

LeperMessiah
02-25-2013, 09:46 AM
It happens in NBA jam and that's based on real life, so yes it is real.

LeperMessiah
02-25-2013, 09:47 AM
lol wtf? You are seriously trying to argue being confident has no affect on whether you will be successful or not?

Yes, yes he did because your mind has -no- effect on anything.

Il Mago50
02-25-2013, 09:55 AM
If you play basketball you know it does. A jumpshot is nothing but muscle memory, concentration, etc. When you get in a rhythm, you tend to ignore all irrelevant factors surrounding you and simply perform at an optimal level as defined by sports psychology and have that feel of how to repetitively shoot the ball from a distance to score. I've had it a few times where I couldn't miss for a half and that's basically what it is.

jets33
02-25-2013, 10:18 AM
I played basketball for eleven years. I disagree.

Hahaha. Eleven years is not long at all so I'm guessing you haven't played competitive basketball. I haven't gone a week without seeing a player get hot or other get into the zone. I've been playing ball since I can remember including university ball in canada and I can tell you that I've been in the zone before. Everything slows down and you can shoot from anywhere and not miss. It definitely exists.

Nats_vcu-Okc35
02-25-2013, 10:53 AM
1. Have you ever heard of a subconscious you can consciously think you are the greatest player ever but subconsciously know you suck also confidence is only half of it you still have to be physically capable to some extent.

2. Science like anything is based on faith and thereby is flawed by definition nothing will ever be an absolute truth.

Just had to make sure this made it to the next page. There may be statistics that defy the phenomenon, but basketball is such a game of rhythm and flow, I can't discount it from at least being a possibility. I definitely do believe there is something to be said about momentum and confidence in sport that cannot be quantified by numbers.

Aapox
02-25-2013, 11:15 AM
Statistics will never explain real life phenomena completely and it's absurd to think so. Last time I checked, researchers are still learning new things about how our brains work--the limitations of our brains is unknown.

I too am someone who has experienced being "in the zone" which I prefer to "hot hand" because it's much more mental than anything. There have been a good ~20 times I can remember playing (including rec ball) where I just know the next shot I take is going in no matter where it's from or how I shoot it, and it does. It's not just basketball either. I used to be really into aggressive rollerblading and I would get in a zone where I could do trick after trick after trick and I knew my feet were going to be where they needed to be and my body in the position needed to balance.

The next thing we need to figure out is how to find the "zone" more and more! :)

PS, I logged in just to say the NBA Jam and Mike Jones comments made me LOL, which sucks because I am sick with a cold right now ;)

hugepatsfan
02-25-2013, 11:18 AM
You can never discount the human element of the game. A player that is struggling might feel the pressure to make a shot every time he touches the ball. That can lead to bad shots or a breakdown in form causing a miss. Conversely, a player that feels like he's doing great might be more relaxed and not press to make a shot.

This doesn't mean stats are useless though, as this stuff tends to average itself out. Stats are just that - averages. They project long term trends much better than short term performance.

tredigs
02-25-2013, 11:25 AM
It doesn't matter at what point you are in your shot and how many you have made, it is equally likely it goes in as it doesn't based on your average.

It's why the coin toss analogy is apt.

Your comparing a player with understanding of tempo (game flow, reactions to another player also hitting a few straight buckets), crowd involvement (is road v home discrepancy also a farce?), fatigue, etc to a coin? Are you serious dude?

Why is it that some players consistently perform better in the 4th quarter of games (just off this year, Kyrie Irving comes to mind in a big way)? Is it not because they are more locked in (which to me is really what "hot hand" is)?

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 11:27 AM
1. Have you ever heard of a subconscious you can consciously think you are the greatest player ever but subconsciously know you suck also confidence is only half of it you still have to be physically capable to some extent.

2. Science like anything is based on faith and thereby is flawed by definition nothing will ever be an absolute truth.

Science is not based on faith. That's just stupid.

Sly Guy
02-25-2013, 11:32 AM
my friend tries to disprove it with stats all the time, but he doesn't play. I'm a firm believer in it, though, I don't care what the stats say.

hugepatsfan
02-25-2013, 11:58 AM
Stats are designed to account for hot hands and slumps over time. Their purpose is to project what a player is without his peaks and valleys. That's why you have phrases such as "regression to the mean" and sample size. They don't discount things like hot hands - they offset them by including slumps as well.

TheNumber37
02-25-2013, 12:16 PM
Yes.
We've all seen players go for a heat check and start making 30 footers.

DaBUU
02-25-2013, 12:20 PM
There this chinese lady I get a massage from, she does this thing called the "Hot Hand"....are we talking about the same thing?

Minimal
02-25-2013, 12:23 PM
Everyone who plays basketball, I think knows that there is such a thing. Yes.

MrfadeawayJB
02-25-2013, 12:39 PM
Yes.

LongIslandIcedZ
02-25-2013, 12:52 PM
Absolutely. I think it is based mostly on confidence, and it definitely exists.

When I played in school, my goal was to always get a couple open jump shot looks early on. Hit a couple and get into a rhythm. Then once the defense has to respect the jumper, I would pump fake a bit, dribble around and hit a couple more jumpers.

But if I'm not able to get that inital open look and I force a couple shot, I look like crap out there. I'd say its all about confidence and rhythm.

D-Leethal
02-25-2013, 01:10 PM
Anyone who says it doesn't exist has never picked up a basketball. Its very real.

heyman321
02-25-2013, 01:36 PM
Absolutely. I think it is based mostly on confidence, and it definitely exists.

When I played in school, my goal was to always get a couple open jump shot looks early on. Hit a couple and get into a rhythm. Then once the defense has to respect the jumper, I would pump fake a bit, dribble around and hit a couple more jumpers.

But if I'm not able to get that inital open look and I force a couple shot, I look like crap out there. I'd say its all about confidence and rhythm.

yeah I'm studying psychology. The "hot hand" is definitely a psychological phenomenon. I haven't read those papers that say otherwise and I don't how they could disprove it, but MANY psychological phenomenons are based on confidence, and it's definitely there.

xRipCity
02-25-2013, 02:02 PM
Of course it does. Ever heard of Steve Kerr?

From personal experience through Varisty in high school I was the "3-point guy" (the white guy who came on to hit a 3) and trust me, the hot hand exists. I was one of the streakiest shooters ever.... But when I started hitting... GET ME THE BALL. It didn't matter if I faded away or had a hand in my face, it was three points automatically, I could hit almost anything. A lot of it has to do with confidence, but when you're a pure shooter, you know about the hot hand.

Showtime Steve
02-25-2013, 02:09 PM
Must have never hooped before. Numbers aren't everything. Don't understand how someone couldn't believe in a hot hand. Time slows down, hoop seems huge, its like you know everything your opponent will do on defense and youre steps ahead. and it's even better when you have someone bigging you up!

Hawkeye15
02-25-2013, 02:15 PM
Nah, I played the two. And I was a cocky mother****er who expected everything to go in. During games I didn't believe in close games being high variation and that you could will your team to victory. But after the game I knew that was false even though most players don't think that's true.

I only believe things with a good amount of evidence. If it is true, it will show up in statistics.

uh, it does. LeBron's 6 game stretch for example. Slumps are an example of this. It happens all the time dude, and I have experienced it myself plenty of times.

C_Mund
02-25-2013, 02:17 PM
And all the statistical evidence against the "hot hand." I was just suggesting you guys are biased because some days you were better than normal.

Yeah but there's days where "better than normal" seems to come naturally. Like when you don't even have to focus on the rim, the shot just goes off mechanically. I dunno. I'm a pretty good shooter and I have bad days as often as good days, but sometimes the shot feels so comfortable compared to others.

Jamiecballer
02-25-2013, 02:24 PM
yeah I'm studying psychology. The "hot hand" is definitely a psychological phenomenon. I haven't read those papers that say otherwise and I don't how they could disprove it, but MANY psychological phenomenons are based on confidence, and it's definitely there.

wait - you, the guy that supports vigorously booing your own players as a way of improving their performance, you study psychology? do your school a favor then and don't mention where you are studying.

JasonJohnHorn
02-25-2013, 02:43 PM
Yeah, for sure. I've had it some times when playing with friends. For example, I'm not normally a great three point shooter, but I was playing pick up games with friends one night, and I'm not normally a ball hog, but I was just hitting everything. I was in this rhythm and I hit like 5 straight from down town. The thing is though, I knew they were going down before I even lined up. I was just feeling it. Normally I don't take a 3 unless i'm wide open. The first time I took it I was open. The second time the defender gave me the space and the third fourth and fifth time i had a guy on me, but I knew they were falling so I just kept shooting.

Absolutely. And most guys who play will agree. Shooters will say that some nights things just click and that basket opens up wide for you. Some instances there are cases of statistical anomalies, which I won't disagree with, but there is such a thing as finding a rhythm when you are shooting, and when you got the rhythm down, you get a hot hand.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 02:47 PM
Yes.
We've all seen players go for a heat check and start making 30 footers.

We see players miss heat checks a lot more than make them.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 02:50 PM
uh, it does. LeBron's 6 game stretch for example. Slumps are an example of this. It happens all the time dude, and I have experienced it myself plenty of times.

Notice the six teams he played. Awful defensive teams. Notice what he did more. Post ups and he got more points in transitions. Isos were down.

So yes, that showed up exactly why he was on a hot streak. Awful defensive teams, most fast break opportunities, more post ups.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 02:52 PM
Yeah but there's days where "better than normal" seems to come naturally. Like when you don't even have to focus on the rim, the shot just goes off mechanically. I dunno. I'm a pretty good shooter and I have bad days as often as good days, but sometimes the shot feels so comfortable compared to others.

Things always average out, but there are going to be days where you shoot above the average and shoot below the average. It's just how statistics work.

Beltrans Mole
02-25-2013, 03:07 PM
Things always average out, but there are going to be days where you shoot above the average and shoot below the average. It's just how statistics work.

Can't the the hot hand exist while still acknowledging basic laws of average? You hear the term "rhythm shooters" tossed around all of the time for a reason. Many shooters need to feel good and get their confidence going when they really go off. My point being, what statistical data proves that the hot hand is a myth? Like you've stated, some days are above average and some are below average...some are right on the average. But wouldn't the "hot hand" just be proof that there are above average days for a basketball player when analyzing the shot?

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 03:09 PM
Can't the the hot hand exist while still acknowledging basic laws of average? You hear the term "rhythm shooters" tossed around all of the time for a reason. Many shooters need to feel good and get their confidence going when they really go off. Might point being, what statistical data proves that the hot hand is a myth? Like you've stated, some days are above average and some are below average...some are right on the average. But wouldn't the "hot hand" just be proof that there are above average days for a basketball player when analyzing the shot?

There was a study done with about four years worth of data. It's on Wikipedia labeled the hot hand fallacy. They give a pretty simple explanation of the study. I posted the excerpt earlier for people to read.

heyman321
02-25-2013, 03:14 PM
wait - you, the guy that supports vigorously booing your own players as a way of improving their performance, you study psychology? do your school a favor then and don't mention where you are studying.

Lmfao! Are you still mad that you couldn't make an valid argument so ink decided to close that thread? hahahahahaha, grilled dude.

Jamiecballer
02-25-2013, 03:39 PM
Lmfao! Are you still mad that you couldn't make an valid argument so ink decided to close that thread? hahahahahaha, grilled dude.

haha ya i'm furious can't ya tell :p

king4day
02-25-2013, 06:03 PM
No, just statistical variation. Is heads "hot" when you are flipping a coin.

I don't think the two are comparable.
When shooting well, your form is consistent. Flipping a coin is just chance since no one practices that.

NoahH
02-25-2013, 06:48 PM
I played basketball for eleven years. I disagree.

I played basketball for fifteen years and i agree the hot hand does exist

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 06:50 PM
I played basketball for fifteen years and i agree the hot hand does exist

The argument was made at someone who used the argument from authority fallacy. It doesn't matter if you played because anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.

Freakazoid
02-25-2013, 07:02 PM
I think it exists but not for the reasons that basketball enthusiasts and players think.

I think making shots just increases your confidence and likely hood of shooting more baskets and if you're already a pretty good shooter, there's already a good chance that you'll make the majority of your shots but because of the serial position effect, you'll most likely forget about the missed shots during the middle of the "hot streak" and remember the first few/last few shots. If you look at some of the game threads, there are players who shoot well in the first few minutes, miss a bunch of shots in the middle and make a bunch of shots towards the end. The end result could very well be 12/27 and you'll still see fans exclaiming how so and so was "shooting lights out" until they see the score board. This is especially common if you have volume shooters on your team.

Conversely, missing shots decreases your confidence and as a result, you might second guess yourself which would result in an abnormal stroke/release or would result in a blocked shot. As well you might not take shots which you would normally take.

aztr0
02-25-2013, 07:38 PM
Exists. Sometimes its one of those days or nights where everything you throw up goes in.

crewfan13
02-25-2013, 07:49 PM
I dont believe it does but i believe the thought does represent something based in truth.
Theres no such thing as the hot hand in the sense people just become better at given moments but.

I do believe after hitting a few buckets in a row it can really aide you confidence and confidence helps you shoot better and drive more aggressively.

A bit of a bail out answer but thats how i feel about it.

That's pretty much how I feel too. I will explain more below. But statistically speaking, making 3 in a row doesn't necessarily mean you're more likely to make the 4th, if you look at it that way and take any situation or context out of the scenario. And honestly, I'm sure we've all had times where we've hit 3 in a row, but they all kind of bounced around and were ugly. We made 3 in a row, but didn't necessarily feel "hot" and other times you make 3 in a row and they feel great and pure. so you feel hot.


Things always average out, but there are going to be days where you shoot above the average and shoot below the average. It's just how statistics work.

But couldn't that be the explanation for these statistical anomalies? The study obviously acknowledges that there will be days in which you shoot above and below average. Couldn't those days you shoot above average be the "hot hand days."

One of the big things in the study is the idea of runs, i.e. if you're hot or cold, you should have less runs than you would on an average day. But here are two examples of games where the hot game has 7 runs and the col

HHHMHHMHHHMH - 7 "runs" on 9/12 shooting

MMHHMMHHMMHM - 7 "runs" on 5/12 shooting

I would say game one the player had the "hot hand" and in game two, the player was more or less on an average night. But according to the run analysis, neither game could the player be considered "hot" even though one game the player clearly shot the ball very well.

Maybe in the exact statisitical world, making your last 3 shots doesn't improve your chances of making shot number 4, but when actually applied to a game, I believe the hot hand truly does exist. Being hot doesn't guarantee a make, but with boosts confidence and having your stroke in groove and all parts working together perfectly, I think it makes you a better shooter for that game or quarter or whatever period of time you're "hot."

I really think this example is an example of a time where stats maybe don't tell the whole story. But riddle me this, if you're a true believer in that the hot hand doesn't exist, who would you have take your game winning shot? For the example, whoever you choose will get the same open look (for this case, lets say its an open 18 footer)

Player A is 5-6 on the night and has made his last 4 shots, all within the last 2 minutes of the game. All of his shots, made or missed have been from 15-20 ft. Player A is a 45% shooter from that range on the season.


Player B is 1-6 on the night. He has missed 4 in a row, all within the last 2 minutes. All of his shots have been in that 15-20 foot range too. Player B is a 48% shooter from that range on the season.

Who gets the shot?

Vancity
02-25-2013, 08:11 PM
^ good point.

It's also why Reggie Miller and co. would shoot "out of a slump"
If Reggie decided that it just wasn't falling. He would stop shooting at 1-6 by Guppyfighter's logic to spare his statistics. Rather than get to his point of getting hot.

See 8 points in 18 seconds. What statistical logic would he have to run back to the three point line other than being supremely confident he was going to hit it, and had the hot hand.

There is too much evidence of guy's who are just feeling it and get rolling and then other times where their shot is off. Let Andrea Bargnani's lack of confidence prove his lack of shooting success be an example. Some guys improve, and this is usually a combinaation of improving skillset, realising limitations and playing within their game and confidence.

Alan Anderson. Thread Closed.

LASportsFan1996
02-25-2013, 08:16 PM
Yes. You get in that zone and you can't be stopped or so it seems atleast

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 08:17 PM
^ good point.

It's also why Reggie Miller and co. would shoot "out of a slump"
If Reggie decided that it just wasn't falling. He would stop shooting at 1-6 by Guppyfighter's logic to spare his statistics. Rather than get to his point of getting hot.

See 8 points in 18 seconds. What statistical logic would he have to run back to the three point line other than being supremely confident he was going to hit it, and had the hot hand.

There is too much evidence of guy's who are just feeling it and get rolling and then other times where their shot is off. Let Andrea Bargnani's lack of confidence prove his lack of shooting success be an example. Some guys improve, and this is usually a combinaation of improving skillset, realising limitations and playing within their game and confidence.

Alan Anderson. Thread Closed.

This is all conjecture. We know that even if a guy is 4/4 the chances of making the next shot is the same as his average. And every shot that follows. It's statistical variation and you can choose to not believe that if you want.

The fact is if there is something that is happening that can be seen, as in the hot hand, than it will show up in the stats. Making more shots does not improve the chance of the next shot going in and we know that, no matter what kind of run a person is going on.

tredigs
02-25-2013, 09:08 PM
This is all conjecture. We know that even if a guy is 4/4 the chances of making the next shot is the same as his average. And every shot that follows. It's statistical variation and you can choose to not believe that if you want.

The fact is if there is something that is happening that can be seen, as in the hot hand, than it will show up in the stats. Making more shots does not improve the chance of the next shot going in and we know that, no matter what kind of run a person is going on.

So crowd noise, tempo, what point of the game it is, and other external factors also have no bearing on a players confidence and his abilities to make a shot, I take it? Just "flipping the coin" until they regress to the mean?

How about fatigue? Are we still flipping at that point? I need help. ...Well, someone needs help.

Hawkeye15
02-25-2013, 09:11 PM
Notice the six teams he played. Awful defensive teams. Notice what he did more. Post ups and he got more points in transitions. Isos were down.

So yes, that showed up exactly why he was on a hot streak. Awful defensive teams, most fast break opportunities, more post ups.

You want to know why it doesn't show in stats? Well, it does. Stats are a mean, they are the final measurement of peaks and valley's. Many of those peaks are games where the player was feeling good, body perfect, everything seemed easy, basket as wide as the ocean. There is a feeling sometimes, and it makes you confident, and I am sorry, but sports are extremely mental, that is a fact. Humans are not robots. If you miss a few easy shots, it can get to you. If you are in warmups and every single thing you throw up is hitting the bottom of the net, you enter the game more confident.

The hot hand is real, whether you want to believe it or not. I have experienced it many times.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 09:13 PM
So crowd noise, tempo, what point of the game it is, and other external factors also have no bearing on a players confidence and his abilities to make a shot, I take it? Just "flipping the coin" until they regress to the mean?

How about fatigue? Are we still flipping at that point? I need help. ...Well, someone needs help.


We can actually measure the affect of home court. It's worth about three points. If there is a tangible affect you can see it in the stats.

tredigs
02-25-2013, 09:14 PM
We can actually measure the affect of home court. It's worth about three points. If there is a tangible affect you can see it in the stats.

You do realize that the world of stats is both imperfect and incomplete, right dude? Especially in the world of basketball.

You want to know why it doesn't show in stats? Well, it does. Stats are a mean, they are the final measurement of peaks and valley's. Many of those peaks are games where the player was feeling good, body perfect, everything seemed easy, basket as wide as the ocean. There is a feeling sometimes, and it makes you confident, and I am sorry, but sports are extremely mental, that is a fact. Humans are not robots. If you miss a few easy shots, it can get to you. If you are in warmups and every single thing you throw up is hitting the bottom of the net, you enter the game more confident.

The hot hand is real, whether you want to believe it or not. I have experienced it many times.

DING.


We can actually measure the affect of home court. It's worth about three points. If there is a tangible affect you can see it in the stats.

You're not even reading my comment. Never mentioned home court.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 09:15 PM
You want to know why it doesn't show in stats? Well, it does. Stats are a mean, they are the final measurement of peaks and valley's. Many of those peaks are games where the player was feeling good, body perfect, everything seemed easy, basket as wide as the ocean. There is a feeling sometimes, and it makes you confident, and I am sorry, but sports are extremely mental, that is a fact. Humans are not robots. If you miss a few easy shots, it can get to you. If you are in warmups and every single thing you throw up is hitting the bottom of the net, you enter the game more confident.

The hot hand is real, whether you want to believe it or not. I have experienced it many times.

You have to be able to show it is not statistical variation and that it is simply having the hot hand. If your career percentage is 45 and you are shooting 45 on the season, the next shot has a 45 percent chance to go in.

It doesn't matter if you are 0-3 or 3-3. The next shot isn't more likely or less likely to go in based on being hot or cold. There is little to no random variation.

rocket
02-25-2013, 09:16 PM
Obviously it's not 100% real, but generally when player catch fire they do have the hot hand.

Hawkeye15
02-25-2013, 09:19 PM
You have to be able to show it is not statistical variation and that it is simply having the hot hand. If your career percentage is 45 and you are shooting 45 on the season, the next shot has a 45 percent chance to go in.

It doesn't matter if you are 0-3 or 3-3. The next shot isn't more likely or less likely to go in based on being hot or cold. There is little to no random variation.

you are overrating what stats tell us in basketball man, and underrating how mental the game is. We are going to disagree on this one, period.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 09:20 PM
you are overrating what stats tell us in basketball man. We are going to disagree on this one, period.

"To test the theory, the researchers got the records of every shot taken from the field by the Philadelphia 76ers over a full season and a half. When they looked at every sequence of two shots by the same player - hit-hit, hit-miss, miss-hit or miss-miss - they found that a hit followed by a miss was actually a tiny bit likelier than a hit followed by a hit.

They also looked at sequences of more than two shots. Again, the number of long streaks was no greater than would have been expected in a random set of data, with every event independent of its predecessor."

"Indeed, in separate research with men's and women's basketball teams at Cornell University, players took shots from a fixed distance. Both the shooter and an observer were allowed either to bet a nickel on the next shot or to raise the bet to a dime. Both players and observers tended to raise their bets after successful shots, hoping to take advantage of their sense of when a shooter was hot. But there proved to be no correlation between the dime bets and the shots that followed.

Still, facts are facts and belief is belief. Dr. Tversky finds that no quantity of data is enough to change mavens' minds about streaks in random-seeming sequences - a phenomenon that may apply to gambling psychology and stock-market analysis as well. ''It may be that the only way you can learn about randomness is to toss coins on the side while you play,'' he said."

Sactown
02-25-2013, 09:23 PM
I can't say, I'm always on fire... :cool:

tredigs
02-25-2013, 09:24 PM
Guppy, the hilariously wrong notion that any shot at any point has the same propensity of going in as your lifetime average (or is it season, or is it month? What part of the 3pt line is he at? Have you thought of any of this?) aside, do you honestly believe that something has to be "statistically proven" to realize it does in fact exist. In your world, has everything that can be proven already been proven?

FYI, people knew there was a gravitational force loooong before Newton put it on paper.

-- What I'm seeing from a look at that study up there is that they're taking a very basic study of a team and assuming that correlation = causation. It's flawed in its premise.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 09:27 PM
Guppy, the hilariously wrong notion that any shot at any point has the same propensity of going in as your lifetime average (or is it season, or is it month? What part of the 3pt line is he at? Have you thought of any of this?) aside, do you honestly believe that something has to be "statistically proven" to realize it does in fact exist. In your world, has everything that can be proven already been proven?

FYI, people knew there was a gravitational force loooong before Newton put it on paper.


I wasn't going to add in an unneeded circumstance. It's obvious what I was talking about. If your percentage from a specific spot is 33 percent, than you will hit it 33 percent of the time you shoot it from that spot regardless of previous outcomes.

Of course people realized gravity existed, it had a tangible affect.

Are you actually suggesting that I said everything has been proven? This one thing has enough data to statistically disprove it.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 09:28 PM
Guppy, the hilariously wrong notion that any shot at any point has the same propensity of going in as your lifetime average (or is it season, or is it month? What part of the 3pt line is he at? Have you thought of any of this?) aside, do you honestly believe that something has to be "statistically proven" to realize it does in fact exist. In your world, has everything that can be proven already been proven?

FYI, people knew there was a gravitational force loooong before Newton put it on paper.

-- What I'm seeing from a look at that study up there is that they're taking a very basic study of a team and assuming that correlation = causation. It's flawed in its premise.

The theory of a hot hand assumes the correlation =/= causation fallacy.

Hawkeye15
02-25-2013, 09:33 PM
"To test the theory, the researchers got the records of every shot taken from the field by the Philadelphia 76ers over a full season and a half. When they looked at every sequence of two shots by the same player - hit-hit, hit-miss, miss-hit or miss-miss - they found that a hit followed by a miss was actually a tiny bit likelier than a hit followed by a hit.

They also looked at sequences of more than two shots. Again, the number of long streaks was no greater than would have been expected in a random set of data, with every event independent of its predecessor."

"Indeed, in separate research with men's and women's basketball teams at Cornell University, players took shots from a fixed distance. Both the shooter and an observer were allowed either to bet a nickel on the next shot or to raise the bet to a dime. Both players and observers tended to raise their bets after successful shots, hoping to take advantage of their sense of when a shooter was hot. But there proved to be no correlation between the dime bets and the shots that followed.

Still, facts are facts and belief is belief. Dr. Tversky finds that no quantity of data is enough to change mavens' minds about streaks in random-seeming sequences - a phenomenon that may apply to gambling psychology and stock-market analysis as well. ''It may be that the only way you can learn about randomness is to toss coins on the side while you play,'' he said."

I will put it easier for you. No matter what you post, I don't agree with it regarding this subject. I absolutely believe in it, and anything you copy/paste, or type back to me regarding this specific thread is a waste of your time.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 09:36 PM
I will put it easier for you. No matter what you post, I don't agree with it regarding this subject. I absolutely believe in it, and anything you copy/paste, or type back to me regarding this specific thread is a waste of your time.

That's not a very open minded and it suggest you believe something on faith. Not sure why you'd believe anything without evidence. But if that's how you feel, that's how you feel. I don't agree with ignoring any kind of evidence because of faith though. I think that's a wrong way to go about anything.

tredigs
02-25-2013, 09:36 PM
I wasn't going to add in an unneeded circumstance. It's obvious what I was talking about. If your percentage from a specific spot is 33 percent, than you will hit it 33 percent of the time you shoot it from that spot regardless of previous outcomes.

Of course people realized gravity existed, it had a tangible affect.

Are you actually suggesting that I said everything has been proven? This one thing has enough data to statistically disprove it.

Hahah far from. It has incredibly elementary studies that did not even micro analyze the games or particular situations on your side. Show me a study where a heart and brainwave monitor is hooked up to each individual player throughout a season and we can start having a discussion. The point is, this is far above the pay grade that you're giving it credit for. But it's no secret that anyone who has had success playing ball (or plenty of other sports that this applies to) can speak to "being in the zone", "having a hot hand", "seeing the game clearer", etc. This happens in pool, ping pong, basketball, baseball (specifically hitting), etc. It's such a basic/obvious occurrence when it happens that it's actually funny to me that anyone would disagree with the existence.

Those studies are juvenile in depth.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 09:40 PM
Hahah far from. It has incredibly elementary studies that did not even micro analyze the games or particular situations on your side. Show me a study where a heart and brainwave monitor is hooked up to each individual player throughout a season and we can start having a discussion. The point is, this is far above the pay grade that you're giving it credit for. But it's no secret that anyone who has had success playing ball (or plenty of other sports that this applies to) can speak to "being in the zone", "having a hot hand", "seeing the game clearer", etc. This happens in pool, ping pong, basketball, baseball (specifically hitting), etc. It's such a basic/obvious occurrence when it happens that it's actually funny to me that anyone would disagree with the existence.

Those studies are juvenile in depth.


The conjecture you are using to try to prove the hot hand lacks scientific rigor and is far more juvenile. I know myself specifically when I missed shots when I felt like I couldn't miss and I thought it was going in. You are experiencing confirmation bias is all.

tredigs
02-25-2013, 09:51 PM
The conjecture you are using to try to prove the hot hand lacks scientific rigor and is far more juvenile. I know myself specifically when I missed shots when I felt like I couldn't miss and I thought it was going in. You are experiencing confirmation bias is all.

Dude, maybe me and you have differing interpretations of what being hot means. It doesn't mean the shot is going in or the ball is going to be hit out the park, it means that you are locked in, and that the probability of you hitting that pitch extremely well or shooting the shot as best you can in that situation are increased a significant amount. For me and most people I've talked to about it, it's a combination of confidence, feeling great physically, and most importantly thinking/focusing very clearly on what it is you're doing.

It exists. I won't pretend like proving its existence is an easy thing to do, but being extra on-point for stretches of time 100% unequivocally exists. You're rationality is ironically making you look highly irrational here. You're caught in a more and more less common spot where stats and studies have not caught up to reality (or more likely it absolutely has and the studies are just kept private to help benefit whoever it is that ran them).

barreleffact
02-25-2013, 09:56 PM
Yes it exists. Call it the statistical variation, deviation, biological efficiency, whatever. Some days your body has the right fuel and just feels better, you see better, you can react better. It happens. Just like old people may wake up feeling arthritic pain with cold air. The bodies anatomy is very situational. Players strive to feel tip top at all times, but some days you just jump higher or things just click.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 09:56 PM
Tred, you can believe in the hot hand exists. But we know confidence doesn't increase your ability to do something. We know this because during the 1970's there was a self-confidence movement. Kids eventually did increase their self confidence, but there was no significant changes in their academic ability. We already know being confident in your ability doesn't make your ability more potent.

tredigs
02-25-2013, 10:04 PM
Tred, you can believe in the hot hand exists. But we know confidence doesn't increase your ability to do something. We know this because during the 1970's there was a self-confidence movement. Kids eventually did increase their self confidence, but there was no significant changes in their academic ability. We already know being confident in your ability doesn't make your ability more potent.
You're doing that thing where you pick and choose what to respond to again. It's far from just confidence. I won't repeat myself because it's all up there, and eventually I have ZERO doubt this will be a proven phenomena (feels weird to call it that being that it's so universally accepted and seen throughout all sports throughout the world). New thread - -

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 10:17 PM
You're doing that thing where you pick and choose what to respond to again. It's far from just confidence. I won't repeat myself because it's all up there, and eventually I have ZERO doubt this will be a proven phenomena (feels weird to call it that being that it's so universally accepted and seen throughout all sports throughout the world). New thread - -

Universal consensus and fact are very far apart. Remember when everyone thought the world was flat?

Hawkeye15
02-25-2013, 10:33 PM
That's not a very open minded and it suggest you believe something on faith. Not sure why you'd believe anything without evidence. But if that's how you feel, that's how you feel. I don't agree with ignoring any kind of evidence because of faith though. I think that's a wrong way to go about anything.

I have had the feeling. You simply ignore it. Stats don't explain everything in basketball, and you are talking with someone who is very stat oriented. We can disagree on things, no harm in that, right?

Hawkeye15
02-25-2013, 10:35 PM
Yes it exists. Call it the statistical variation, deviation, biological efficiency, whatever. Some days your body has the right fuel and just feels better, you see better, you can react better. It happens. Just like old people may wake up feeling arthritic pain with cold air. The bodies anatomy is very situational. Players strive to feel tip top at all times, but some days you just jump higher or things just click.

Exactly right. We are humans, not robots. If your girl cheated on you, you won't be in the right frame of mind. If everything is going well, body strong, sight is on par that day, you have a bounce in your step, things shake out better. The hot hand absolutely exists, and anyone who thinks otherwise is downplaying the athletes being human.

tredigs
02-25-2013, 10:43 PM
Universal consensus and fact are very far apart. Remember when everyone thought the world was flat?

You mean the thing Pythagoras and the like knew to be true half a millenium before Christ was born (even though he couldn't prove it?). Yeah, read about that.

Unfortunately for you, this is all based on the universal experiences of millions of people over all countries for as long as events have existed. Probably not a coincidence.

I have a strong feeling you don't believe in intuition, either.

jimm120
02-25-2013, 10:56 PM
Just want to say that the "hot hand" is real but it's mostly a momentary thing.

So, the argument of "you'll always hit 33%from that spot" is true but false. It's true in the long run but the hot hand is a momentary feeling. It'll start and Go off for a few minutes, a day, a month, etc...it's to permanent.

I'm a 28 year old guy who has gotten pretty fat (by my standards) over the past 8 years. I just played basketball today with my students. When I began today, I missed everything! But after like an hour of playing, I started to just barely miss from the key/free throw line area. And I kept up like that for 40 minutes or so. Do I always shoot from that area at a 70-80% clip? Hell no. But I was during that time and that allowed me to beat several students who didn't d me up when they checked the ball.

So yeah, it's ere. It's momentary. Hot hand doesn't mean every shot, but that your depth perception and mechanics are on point.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 11:04 PM
What humans feel doesn't matter unless it affects their play. An A's pitcher came out to pitch very soon after his newborn son died. He struck out the only batter he faced. Being in a bad mood or good mood doesn't make your abilities worse or better or change your mechanics. If you are a professional or just someone who has the game down you are going to do what you do the same and go through the necessary motions.

Everyone expects me to believe something that has no proof and has evidence against it. It's why the head and tails analogy is so apt. You get six or seven heads in a row. It's weird and noticeable. You remember that. However, it follows the same pattern as any other thing that relies on chance.

Believing something without proof and how you feel is pretty hard headed and close minded. "I don't care what the evidence says, I feel a certain way."

Chronz
02-25-2013, 11:06 PM
One thing I've wondered but never analyzed was a trend of this seemingly high variance in the efficiency of long 2pters.

I got the impression that its an inconsistent range, couldn't high variance be a sign of this "hot hand"

Like when the Magic made the finals, ALL year they were an inconsistent/elite offense because of their 3pt shooting, but they got hot at the right moment. Isn't their entire run based on the strength of the hot hand, albeit collectively

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 11:06 PM
You mean the thing Pythagoras and the like knew to be true half a millenium before Christ was born (even though he couldn't prove it?). Yeah, read about that.

Unfortunately for you, this is all based on the universal experiences of millions of people over all countries for as long as events have existed. Probably not a coincidence.

I have a strong feeling you don't believe in intuition, either.

40 Muslims were in the same room. And they all experienced the same feeling and witnessed the same thing. Does this actually make the miracle true or is their a logical explanation? Feelings =/= Reality

tredigs
02-25-2013, 11:20 PM
40 Muslims were in the same room. And they all experienced the same feeling and witnessed the same thing. Does this actually make the miracle true or is their a logical explanation? Feelings =/= Reality

Yes, because these are two comparable scenarios. WELL PLAYED!

We're done here. I do pity the fact that you cannot believe in intuition, though. Must just all be coincidences. Carry on --

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 11:23 PM
Yes, because these are two comparable scenarios. WELL PLAYED!

We're done here. I do pity the fact that you cannot believe in intuition, though. Must just all be coincidences. Carry on --

I do believe in intuition, but you don't need it in this situation because there is data. Sure, pretty much a coincidence when someone goes hot.

And the situations are comparable. It doesn't matter what people feel in an argument. Feelings don't matter.

I don't understand getting snippy with me, though. No need to be condescending because we have different thought processes in our belief system.

Hawkeye15
02-25-2013, 11:24 PM
One thing I've wondered but never analyzed was a trend of this seemingly high variance in the efficiency of long 2pters.

I got the impression that its an inconsistent range, couldn't high variance be a sign of this "hot hand"

Like when the Magic made the finals, ALL year they were an inconsistent/elite offense because of their 3pt shooting, but they got hot at the right moment. Isn't their entire run based on the strength of the hot hand, albeit collectively

Yes, it is a real thing. We are humans, not robots who never get ill, sore, injured, tired, or lose mental confidence. When things are clicking, they click. When they aren't, we see slumps.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 11:27 PM
Yes, it is a real thing. We are humans, not robots who never get ill, sore, injured, tired, or lose mental confidence. When things are clicking, they click. When they aren't, we see slumps.

You know, being humans doesn't change the fact what you call a hot hand follows a very strict pattern that most data with chance follows.

You know the comment "Advanced stats don't matter, basketball is played on a court." That basically just doesn't change anything because it's based on what actually happened. Just like this. Us being humans hasn't changed anything, because this data is from humans.

b@llhog24
02-25-2013, 11:28 PM
It's honestly not that serious.

Hawkeye15
02-25-2013, 11:30 PM
You know, being humans doesn't change the fact what you call a hot hand follows a very strict pattern that most data with chance follows.

You know the comment "Advanced stats don't matter, basketball is played on a court." That basically just doesn't change anything because it's based on what actually happened. Just like this. Us being humans hasn't changed anything, because this data is from humans.

stats are a measure of the median. You are still missing that fact. Like I said, we disagree on this. I have literally experienced it. So nothing you can say will change my mind.

IversonIsKrazy
02-25-2013, 11:37 PM
Kind of. In terms of literal, obviously not lol. It's all physcological, one u get a few in, ur more confident, u have no hesitation, just have a better feel. And because of that, you keep knocking them down. Basketball is a mental game as well as physical. The "Hot Hand" is a physcological tool that keeps shooters knocking down shot after shot.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 11:37 PM
stats are a measure of the median. You are still missing that fact. Like I said, we disagree on this. I have literally experienced it. So nothing you can say will change my mind.

I already explained the first claim. Not sure why you keep bringing that up.

The bold, that line doesn't put you in the sanest company. Not calling you insane or anything, I am just hinting that what you feel doesn't matter in terms of what is reality. 100 percent conviction in anything is pretty bad. You should always recognize you have the ability to be wrong on anything.

C-Wick925
02-25-2013, 11:42 PM
Dunno about hot but mine is pretty warm after masturbation

Hawkeye15
02-25-2013, 11:50 PM
I already explained the first claim. Not sure why you keep bringing that up.

The bold, that line doesn't put you in the sanest company. Not calling you insane or anything, I am just hinting that what you feel doesn't matter in terms of what is reality. 100 percent conviction in anything is pretty bad. You should always recognize you have the ability to be wrong on anything.

I realize I can be wrong, but I am sure of this opinion.

Guppyfighter
02-25-2013, 11:51 PM
I realize I can be wrong, but I am sure of this opinion.

I believe you believe that. But that's as far as I'd go on the hot hand.

crewfan13
02-26-2013, 12:27 AM
How about this Guppy. If the hot hand does not exist, than shouldn't the majority of someone's games, they shoot roughly their FG%, with the occassional game being the statistical anomaly. Lets look at Ersan Ilyasova as an example, as he is an example of a streaky shooter on the team I follow most closely. On the season, Ersan is a 45% shooting from 3. So in theory, the majority of the nights he plays, he should be roughly around 45% or so on threes. For my counting, I gave him a 15% give or take to use easy numbers of 30% and 60%. So how come, in 53 games played, does Ersan only shoot within that 30-60% window 14 times? Does that mean that the other 39 games are all statistical anomalies. That seems like an awful lot of anomalies doesn't it?

I understand the premise behind what the researchers are doing. I get that, in theory, with all external factors taken out, a 45% shooter has a 45% chance of making their next shot, regardless of whether or not they made the previous shot. Unfortunately, basketball is not played in a vacuum. There are external factors that play a role in the game. Whether those factors are your form being perfect, the fans pumping you up, your confidence skyrocketing, ect. Simply put, research like the ones you're referring to are attempting to quantify something that's difficult to quantify. Just because you make 2 shots in a row, doesn't mean you're feeling the hot hand. Heck, I've slammed 2 threes off the glass home in a row, and my shot was way out of whack. So odds are, I was probably going to miss the next one. This is something that is hard to quantify. By running statisical analysis, you can't determine if a player is feeling it or not.

Guppyfighter
02-26-2013, 12:43 AM
How about this Guppy. If the hot hand does not exist, than shouldn't the majority of someone's games, they shoot roughly their FG%, with the occassional game being the statistical anomaly. Lets look at Ersan Ilyasova as an example, as he is an example of a streaky shooter on the team I follow most closely. On the season, Ersan is a 45% shooting from 3. So in theory, the majority of the nights he plays, he should be roughly around 45% or so on threes. For my counting, I gave him a 15% give or take to use easy numbers of 30% and 60%. So how come, in 53 games played, does Ersan only shoot within that 30-60% window 14 times? Does that mean that the other 39 games are all statistical anomalies. That seems like an awful lot of anomalies doesn't it?

I understand the premise behind what the researchers are doing. I get that, in theory, with all external factors taken out, a 45% shooter has a 45% chance of making their next shot, regardless of whether or not they made the previous shot. Unfortunately, basketball is not played in a vacuum. There are external factors that play a role in the game. Whether those factors are your form being perfect, the fans pumping you up, your confidence skyrocketing, ect. Simply put, research like the ones you're referring to are attempting to quantify something that's difficult to quantify. Just because you make 2 shots in a row, doesn't mean you're feeling the hot hand. Heck, I've slammed 2 threes off the glass home in a row, and my shot was way out of whack. So odds are, I was probably going to miss the next one. This is something that is hard to quantify. By running statisical analysis, you can't determine if a player is feeling it or not.

They aren't anomalies, it's just the law of averages. You will shoot above your head one day merely by coincidence and regress to the mean the next day.

crewfan13
02-26-2013, 12:53 AM
So aren't you right there admitting that it exists? If you're going to shoot above your average one day, then weren't you hot that day, and if you shoot poor the next day, then aren't you cold?

Couldn't you look at it from two sides of the coin too? If you're shooting 45% on the year, then the chances of you making the shot should be 45%. But if you're shooting 70% on the day, couldn't you argue the chances of you making that shot 70%? And if you can make that argument, then by definition, you're shooting better than your averages, so isn't that a "hot hand."

My point in the Ersan thing, is that if you aren't consistently shooting near your percentage, then on a given night, wouldn't you get a more accurate guess to whether or not he's going to make by looking at his previous shots from that night, instead of looking at season or career numbers? If it is, then doesn't that imply that a person can be hot or cold on a given night, or at a given time during the game?

Also, is it really coincidence that he's consitently shooting either a pretty high percentage, or a pretty low percentage? Or can there be another possible explanation, like perhaps some nights he's feeling his shots, and others he isn't. Which basically is the concept of a hot hand.

I also think that the researchers took the idea of the hot hand too literally. I don't think this is nba jam where you have to hit like three in a row to get hot then can't miss. If a guy goes 15-20 shooting on a night, I'm going to say that he was hot. To me, its doesn't matter if he missed his first 5, then hit his next 15, or if he sprinkled his 5 in between bunches of makes. I don't think that the researchers adequately accounted for that. They simply looked at whether or not your last shot effects how well you'll shoot your next shot. Maybe that's the letter of the law when looking at the hot hand, but even if you look at stats and look how consistently inconsistent guys are, you'll see that there's some truth to being hot or not hot.

NoahH
02-26-2013, 02:25 AM
Sometimes you are just feeling it and sometimes you aren't. How can I explain going out two games ago and putting up 8-11 from 3pt and then the last game going 3-12 from 3pt.

Vancity
02-26-2013, 02:29 AM
This is all conjecture. We know that even if a guy is 4/4 the chances of making the next shot is the same as his average. And every shot that follows. It's statistical variation and you can choose to not believe that if you want.

The fact is if there is something that is happening that can be seen, as in the hot hand, than it will show up in the stats. Making more shots does not improve the chance of the next shot going in and we know that, no matter what kind of run a person is going on.

If a player who had a 50% 3 pt FG average and shot 4/4 by your logic his likelihood of hitting the next shot would be.. miss. then miss then miss then miss. So if I know a guy is shooting lights out I may as well not even guard him on the perimeter. I know he will miss eventually. Regardless of my presence.


Your 76ers research is flawed because most teams and players shoot under the 50% average so tracking whether a guy hit/hit, hit/miss or miss/hit or miss/miss after a make would lend it be likely after every hit to be a miss and has nothing to do with the hot hand.

I'm the epitome' of a streaky shooter. I need to see the ball go in to then continue shooting in that form, I otherwise keep adjusting my shot.
I've as a result never looked for my shot. Unless I need to take over and my mindset changes.

mightybosstone
02-26-2013, 02:41 AM
While I do think the idea of a player being "on fire" is totally overrated, I do think there is some element of truth to having a better feel for your shot sometimes than other. Anyone who has ever played a pickup game of basketball can attest that some days you're feeling it and other days you aren't, but on the days you're feeling it, you just have a better feel for the distance between yourself and the rim, the arc and spin you apply to the ball and the confidence with which you shoot your shot. Now I'm a short, out of shape bearded white dude with little to no basketball skills whatsoever, so I cannot claim to know what goes through a superstar's head when he hits eight straight jumpers, but you can't tell me that he's not feeling more comfortable in his shot when he releases it from his hands.

Statistically, I'm sure you disprove this theory to some extent, but I think sports are like any other job sometimes. Some days you're feeling it and other days you aren't.

NoahH
02-26-2013, 05:22 PM
Sometimes my shot just feels smoother than other days. There are factors that contribute to it. My legs might be tired, i might not be as into it, might be guarded tighter. All these factors might cause the perception of the 'hot hand.' But there are some days where no matter where i shoot from, im hitting everything. IDK its a hard thing to pin down

kdspurman
02-26-2013, 05:33 PM
I think it does. Sometimes you just have it going and feel like you can't miss.

I know I've played and felt like I couldn't miss at times, just getting into a nice rhythm

It's no different than saying a guy is "cold" and can't hit anything.

D-Leethal
02-26-2013, 05:40 PM
I can't believe people are still arguing with this clown. I don't care if you don't have a stat to verify it - its there.

Your trying to eliminate the psychological aspect of a game that's ebbs and flows directly correlate with a player or team's psyche.

D-Leethal
02-26-2013, 05:40 PM
Watch Jamal Crawford hit 17 straight circus shots and drop 52 on the Heat and tell me the hot hand is a myth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxKEou4vPHk

Really is worth watching just for the **** of it. Thats the hot hand personified right there.

Atticus Finch
02-26-2013, 05:57 PM
How is hot hand defined? Are we talking about an extreme variation where one player shoots an abnormally high % or are we talking about something bigger that in a sense determines the outcome of a jumpshots?

pippsux
02-26-2013, 06:15 PM
Yes, hot hand definately exists...especially in bball, where a player gets hot and nobody and I mean is stopping him.

D-Leethal
02-26-2013, 06:22 PM
How is hot hand defined? Are we talking about an extreme variation where one player shoots an abnormally high % or are we talking about something bigger that in a sense determines the outcome of a jumpshots?

Since when does everything that takes place on the basketball court need to be defined? Isn't that the beauty of sports? These are humans, who feed off emotions and psyche in all aspects of their everyday lives - including competition.

Are we going to argue willpower doesn't exist too?

Guppyfighter
02-26-2013, 06:31 PM
Watch Jamal Crawford hit 17 straight circus shots and drop 52 on the Heat and tell me the hot hand is a myth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxKEou4vPHk

Really is worth watching just for the **** of it. Thats the hot hand personified right there.

This isn't really evidence for anything as it still followed a consistent patten for hit and miss. Calling me a clown for disagreeing with something that has no evidence? You need to be less defensive over things like this? It's petty.

Guppyfighter
02-26-2013, 06:33 PM
Since when does everything that takes place on the basketball court need to be defined? Isn't that the beauty of sports? These are humans, who feed off emotions and psyche in all aspects of their everyday lives - including competition.

Are we going to argue willpower doesn't exist too?

Psychology matters in basketball, but we can typically see when it is affecting a player. When he doesn't look at the rim, when he isn't trying. Those are very easy things to see. Other than that, you can have bad days and still perform well. You can have bad days and perform bad. Your mechanics aren't affected if your girl cheats on you.

Should we care how a player feels if it is obviously not affecting how he plays?

Atticus Finch
02-26-2013, 06:42 PM
Since when does everything that takes place on the basketball court need to be defined? Isn't that the beauty of sports? These are humans, who feed off emotions and psyche in all aspects of their everyday lives - including competition.

Are we going to argue willpower doesn't exist too?

what?

crewfan13
02-26-2013, 06:57 PM
Okay, Guppy, then answer this. The theory you subscribe, indicates that someone who shoots lets say 45%, basically has a 45% chance that he'll make his next shot, regardless of circumstance. Am I correct in saying that?

Well lets' look back at the Ersan Ilyasova example again. Like I indicated, more often than not, he doesn't shoot 45% (or near that) in an individual game. He's what most consider a streaky shooter, who would be susceptible to a hot hand or cold hand more often. So basically, which is a more accurate way of looking at his shooting percentage? Let's say on this particular night, he's shooting 4 of 6. Is it more accurate to say that he has a 66.7% chance of making his next shot, or a 45% chance of making his next shot (assuming he's a 45% shooting on the season)?

Max.This
02-26-2013, 06:58 PM
There are scientists who have done studies on it. I was a firm believer in the hot hand before I actually read a published journal recommended by my professor that proved otherwise

Guppyfighter
02-26-2013, 07:01 PM
Okay, Guppy, then answer this. The theory you subscribe, indicates that someone who shoots lets say 45%, basically has a 45% chance that he'll make his next shot, regardless of circumstance. Am I correct in saying that?

Well lets' look back at the Ersan Ilyasova example again. Like I indicated, more often than not, he doesn't shoot 45% (or near that) in an individual game. He's what most consider a streaky shooter, who would be susceptible to a hot hand or cold hand more often. So basically, which is a more accurate way of looking at his shooting percentage? Let's say on this particular night, he's shooting 4 of 6. Is it more accurate to say that he has a 66.7% chance of making his next shot, or a 45% chance of making his next shot (assuming he's a 45% shooting on the season)?

45 percent. Most players won't shoot their average in a game. Too small of a sample.

Saying he has a 66.7 chance to make his next shot assumes an accurate sample because he's streaky and it also suggests after making this shot he has a 71 percent shot to make the next one after that.

Max.This
02-26-2013, 07:02 PM
Okay, Guppy, then answer this. The theory you subscribe, indicates that someone who shoots lets say 45%, basically has a 45% chance that he'll make his next shot, regardless of circumstance. Am I correct in saying that?

Well lets' look back at the Ersan Ilyasova example again. Like I indicated, more often than not, he doesn't shoot 45% (or near that) in an individual game. He's what most consider a streaky shooter, who would be susceptible to a hot hand or cold hand more often. So basically, which is a more accurate way of looking at his shooting percentage? Let's say on this particular night, he's shooting 4 of 6. Is it more accurate to say that he has a 66.7% chance of making his next shot, or a 45% chance of making his next shot (assuming he's a 45% shooting on the season)?

its still 45% chance its like if you flipped a coin and if you took a look at only trials between 16-22 and they ended up all being heads, your next flip isn't going to be 100% heads.

hugepatsfan
02-26-2013, 07:16 PM
Stats aren't supposed to be used to predict the chances of a next shot going in. If someone's a career 45% shooter that doesn't mean he's 45% likely to make his next shot. It means that 45% is the best bet as to what he's going to shoot over a whole season. Stats are for long term projections because they account for a player's slumps, hot hands, and just average days.

the_antz_nest
02-26-2013, 07:39 PM
Aka Muscle Memory.

this! i believe "the Hot Hand" exists. anyone who's has played sports at a competitive level will know this. to say confidence is a bit misleading. Confidence in you ability and the execution of that ability is the hot hand in my opinion. Make the first shot the brain sends positive feedback telling you if you shoot it exactly like that from that exact spot it will go in every time.

unfortunately even the greatest shooters on earth are not robots so to replicate it exact every time is impossible. no where i think the hot hand comes in is when you can replicate that motion and adjust to the different variables (different spot, defender close out, off dribble) you have more confidence in the muscle memory or positive feedback that the brain is/has given you. now of course overtime this evens out. no one has got over a life shooting of 50%. the misses are needed to give positive and negative feedback.

D-Leethal
02-26-2013, 07:57 PM
Stats aren't supposed to be used to predict the chances of a next shot going in. If someone's a career 45% shooter that doesn't mean he's 45% likely to make his next shot. It means that 45% is the best bet as to what he's going to shoot over a whole season. Stats are for long term projections because they account for a player's slumps, hot hands, and just average days.

This. Wouldn't the best projection of what a player will shoot midst a hot streak be his average during similar hot streaks throughout his career? Not the average of his hot streaks, cold streaks, average streaks?

PatriotsGirl
02-26-2013, 08:08 PM
I believe it exists too. Even if it isn't scientifically supported, once a basket is made, the next one seems easier. At least it did when I played in junior high.

xxplayerxx23
02-26-2013, 08:11 PM
100% yes. When you are feeling it, you don't miss :)

omdigga
02-26-2013, 08:16 PM
I score both on and off the court.. yes, the hot hand exists.

xxplayerxx23
02-26-2013, 08:18 PM
I score both on and off the court.. yes, the hot hand exists.

:laugh:

tredigs
02-26-2013, 09:20 PM
Stats aren't supposed to be used to predict the chances of a next shot going in. If someone's a career 45% shooter that doesn't mean he's 45% likely to make his next shot. It means that 45% is the best bet as to what he's going to shoot over a whole season. Stats are for long term projections because they account for a player's slumps, hot hands, and just average days.

This was stated earlier by Hawkeye, and it's the correct way of looking at it. There are dozens of meta-games throughout a season and even a single game that drastically effect the chances of your current shot going in or not. To think a 45% career shooter has a 45% chance of making his next shot is more than embarrassing logic. This percentage is a product of all factors over a very large sample size, hot+cold streaks (which are both common and predictable) being only two of the countless reasons why eventually a number close to that 45% will eventually be landed on again (unless the player regresses or improves for any number of reasons, which is also an obvious possibility and a reason why taking a lifetime% as a predictor simply because "that's the way it has been before" makes little sense).

KnicksorBust
02-26-2013, 09:35 PM
I've read those studies before but I'm still on the side of "hot hand." Streak shooters like JR Smith/Jamal Crawford/etc. have hot and cold games. I think part of the reason they struggle to find a statistically significant correlation is because the volume/quality of shots changes as you heat up. Teammates can force-feed a "hot teammate" into a regression. Many players will do the classic "heat check" deep 3 or fadeaway. Their shot selection becomes worse as they continue to shoot.

*Superman*
02-27-2013, 11:27 PM
Hot Hand doesn't exist? I think Steph Curry would disagree.

ThaDubs
02-27-2013, 11:29 PM
Hot Hand doesn't exist? I think Steph Curry would disagree.

He's made 17 of his last 22 threes. :worthy:

*Superman*
02-27-2013, 11:30 PM
He's made 17 of his last 22 threes. :worthy:

He's so in the zone. Unreal performance.

D-Leethal
02-28-2013, 12:26 AM
Steph Curry just took a **** all over this thread.

Guppyfighter
02-28-2013, 12:36 AM
Not really. This stuff is bound to happen, especially when you play the Knicks PG's. Most of the Warriors forum predicted a big night from Curry because of the awful PG play from the Knicks.

This is just statistical variation. Curry will now likely regress to the mean on some other game. But it doesn't mean he has the cold hand.

nyballa1991
02-28-2013, 12:47 AM
Yes. Most of those who played the game...and COULD play the game..would attest to that. Personally theres been many times where i just couldn't miss...couple of times where id take them near halfcourt and still they'd go in. Sometimes you're just in that zone.

Ebbs
02-28-2013, 11:33 AM
Umm yea it's a placebo effect though. You believe that you are in the zone so you play better because you believe. Works both ways. If you think you're going to have a bad game you probably will.

Rentzias
02-28-2013, 11:53 AM
Having trouble finding the article I read about this where they took a look statistically at games where players were "in the zone" and the conclusion was that it doesn't really exist, or the effect is exaggerated, i.e. they hit three timely FGs in a row, and all of a sudden, they're in a zone, although they're overall 5-16 in the game and the likelihood of those three in a row has been the same as three misses in a row.

Edit: well, found something more recent that apparently supports it.

http://io9.com/5846325/new-study-supports-the-existence-of-the-hot-hands-phenomenon-in-basketball

barreleffact
02-28-2013, 12:08 PM
Not really. This stuff is bound to happen, especially when you play the Knicks PG's. Most of the Warriors forum predicted a big night from Curry because of the awful PG play from the Knicks.

This is just statistical variation. Curry will now likely regress to the mean on some other game. But it doesn't mean he has the cold hand.

Why do you think it inconceivable that the statistical variation and hot hand cannot coincide with each other? It is all about statistics, but more about the fluidity of the body than the pure statistics of math. Think of it as the standard bell curve that describes most things, there will be nights and moments when you are in the middle or either extreme. Some nights or moments you will have the right combination of adrenaline and body conditions that enable you to be 'in a zone" or have a hot hand. The two concepts are synonymous IMO.

Jimmer55
02-28-2013, 12:11 PM
If you've ever played the game at a fairly high level, you know what the "zone" is. The "hot hand" absolutely exists, especially for shooters.

bagwell368
02-28-2013, 12:25 PM
Anyone that's ever played the game at any level over elementary school knows that the hot hand exists, along with the cold hand.

If you're smart like say Larry Bird (when he was a 2d year guy he went 0 for at GS), you stop shooting and start doing other things (got about 17 boards and 10 assists). If you're a dumb gun you end up with those "classic" 3 for 24 games.

Coaching and playing smart includes knowing who's hot, who's cold, and who needs to have a good game, and who needs to have the ball at crunch time. Stats are great, but, real time in the game, there is just the game. That's how it works.

DaBulls311
02-28-2013, 12:38 PM
If you've ever played the game at a fairly high level, you know what the "zone" is. The "hot hand" absolutely exists, especially for shooters.

This.

Sometimes it feels like I can't miss. During that time, I've had shots where I thought I would miss completely, yet it still went it.

utahjazzno12fan
02-28-2013, 12:54 PM
I agree it does. I usually averaged between 6-10 points a game. My final season playing, our star player was out and I got the hot hand. I ended up with 60 points in an overtime win.

utahjazzno12fan
02-28-2013, 01:00 PM
No, just statistical variation. Is heads "hot" when you are flipping a coin.

As a coach, I always try to get the ball in the hands of my man who has that positive statistical variation going on.

Seriously, a lot of it has to do with confidence. When you feel like that basket is as big as the ocean and you know anything you put up is going in.

YEDN90
02-28-2013, 01:45 PM
Of course it exists. I'm a solid shooter, but I'm better at defending and distributing the ball.

Doesn't stop me from getting into the zone and draining 5 straight 3s or what have you.

crewfan13
02-28-2013, 02:06 PM
its still 45% chance its like if you flipped a coin and if you took a look at only trials between 16-22 and they ended up all being heads, your next flip isn't going to be 100% heads.

But flipping a coin has zero outside influences, and that's exactly my point. Whether or not I flip a coin with my right hand or my left hand or I'm standing on my head, there is still the same chance either way that the coin lands heads or tails. The same cannot be said about basketball. Shooting a basketball successfully over any sort of period of time requires repeating a complex motion with various moving parts. You are shooting from different distances, different angles, sometimes you're standing still, other times you're coming off a screen, and other times you're dribbling yourself. With all those outside variables, you still have to get into your shot form, use various different muslces in your arms and legs and still hit the shot. That's nothing like flipping a coin. I don't think its unreasonable to think that when someone has all of these different various motions in sync for the night, that they can be a better shooter that night. Same goes for when they aren't in sync. All an average really reflects is trying to bring those numbers in to look at how someone did comparitively over the season.

Let's bring this back to your real world coin flipping type applications. If you assign the number 1 to heads and 0 to tails, your average flip would be somewhere close to .5. But if you were predicting the next flip, you wouldn't predict .5. The same would be true if you were looking at a dice number 1-6. If you rolled it, the statistical expectation would be that the next roll would be a 3.5, but logically, you'd never guess 3.5. So if someone rarely shoots their average, and either consistently shoots well above or well below their average, why would you use their career average as an indication of how likely the next shot is to be a make?


Umm yea it's a placebo effect though. You believe that you are in the zone so you play better because you believe. Works both ways. If you think you're going to have a bad game you probably will.

How does that explain when a supremely confident player, someone like a Kobe or a Jordan, whose confidence never waivers, has an off night? Shouldn't someone confident always shoot well, or at least will always shoot close to their average, if you're going to use that as an argument?

I don't think the average really should have an effect on the next shot. The fact that someone shoots 45% doesn't mean that every shot has a 45% chance of going in. There's way too many outside factors that can't be controlled to assume that.

jericho
02-28-2013, 03:28 PM
ok first thing first we are actually taking wikipedia as evidence of this?? can't everybody got to that page and update it with any type of info they want to put up there??

2nd. the guys that supposedly did this are proffesors they didnt even play the game. how can they talk bout something that they havent even tried??

that is all.

Guppyfighter
02-28-2013, 03:30 PM
ok first thing first we are actually taking wikipedia as evidence of this?? can't everybody got to that page and update it with any type of info they want to put up there??

2nd. the guys that supposedly did this are proffesors they didnt even play the game. how can they talk bout something that they havent even tried??

that is all.

Wikipedia admins fix everything that is edited wrong very quickly. I updated my old high schools wikipedia page and with in five hours they fixed every edit.

Secondly, if you don't believe the actual page on wikipedia, it would not be hard to find the actual study.

Guppyfighter
02-28-2013, 03:33 PM
But flipping a coin has zero outside influences, and that's exactly my point. Whether or not I flip a coin with my right hand or my left hand or I'm standing on my head, there is still the same chance either way that the coin lands heads or tails. The same cannot be said about basketball. Shooting a basketball successfully over any sort of period of time requires repeating a complex motion with various moving parts. You are shooting from different distances, different angles, sometimes you're standing still, other times you're coming off a screen, and other times you're dribbling yourself. With all those outside variables, you still have to get into your shot form, use various different muslces in your arms and legs and still hit the shot. That's nothing like flipping a coin. I don't think its unreasonable to think that when someone has all of these different various motions in sync for the night, that they can be a better shooter that night. Same goes for when they aren't in sync. All an average really reflects is trying to bring those numbers in to look at how someone did comparitively over the season.

Let's bring this back to your real world coin flipping type applications. If you assign the number 1 to heads and 0 to tails, your average flip would be somewhere close to .5. But if you were predicting the next flip, you wouldn't predict .5. The same would be true if you were looking at a dice number 1-6. If you rolled it, the statistical expectation would be that the next roll would be a 3.5, but logically, you'd never guess 3.5. So if someone rarely shoots their average, and either consistently shoots well above or well below their average, why would you use their career average as an indication of how likely the next shot is to be a make?



How does that explain when a supremely confident player, someone like a Kobe or a Jordan, whose confidence never waivers, has an off night? Shouldn't someone confident always shoot well, or at least will always shoot close to their average, if you're going to use that as an argument?

I don't think the average really should have an effect on the next shot. The fact that someone shoots 45% doesn't mean that every shot has a 45% chance of going in. There's way too many outside factors that can't be controlled to assume that.

We are just speaking in generalities. If a specific contested fade away shot has a 15 percent chance to go in, it will go in 15 percent of the time regardless of previous shots.

Of course every specific shot has different percentages, but those percentages do not change based on how you are feeling.

torocan
02-28-2013, 03:34 PM
The hot hand/zone exists. And it's more than mental.

Just like some days you don't feel like your body is in balance, or your mind is feeling groggy, there are days where the opposite exists, where your mind and body are in perfect sync and everything is easy.

It happens in golf, basketball, pool or any sport, where literally you can see everything, and your body is doing exactly what you want, resulting in the outcomes that you want. It even happens in purely mental exercises like chess and poker.

I remember games of billiards where literally the pocket looked 3 inches wider, where I was judging cuts and shots with an accuracy of 1/16's of an inch. And then there are days where I struggle to get the ball even remotely close to the pocket.

I've had games in multiple sports where you're just perfectly mentally focused and physically coordinated, those days where you're playing WAY above your level.

It's more than about streaks, it's about a physical and mental rhythm.

And the streak analysis study is flawed. Using a probability based off a single shot/miss is probably the worst way to isolate the hot/cold hand. They should really be looking at nights where a person hits 3 out of 4 or misses 3 out of their first 4 shots to test this.

The zone is real, and anyone who's played sports any sport or game at a competitive level can attest to this.

Guppyfighter
02-28-2013, 03:36 PM
The hot hand/zone exists. And it's more than mental.

Just like some days you don't feel like your body is in balance, or your mind is feeling groggy, there are days where the opposite exists, where your mind and body are in perfect sync and everything is easy.

It happens in golf, basketball, pool or any sport, where literally you can see everything, and your body is doing exactly what you want, resulting in the outcomes that you want. It even happens in purely mental exercises like chess and poker.

I remember games of billiards where literally the pocket looked 3 inches wider, where I was judging cuts and shots with an accuracy of 1/16's of an inch. And then there are days where I struggle to get the ball even remotely close to the pocket.

I've had games in multiple sports where you're just perfectly mentally focused and physically coordinated, those days where you're playing WAY above your level.

It's more than about streaks, it's about a physical and mental rhythm.

And the streak analysis study is flawed. Using a probability based off a single shot/miss is probably the worst way to isolate the hot/cold hand. They should really be looking at nights where a person hits 3 out of 4 or misses 3 out of their first 4 shots to test this.

The zone is real, and anyone who's played sports any sport or game at a competitive level can attest to this.

What about the study where they used an entire 76ers season? Is this study flawed too?

torocan
02-28-2013, 05:00 PM
What about the study where they used an entire 76ers season? Is this study flawed too?

Yes, this study is horribly flawed as it does not take into account shot location, or shifts in defensive coverage. It doesn't factor in the influence of cognitive shifts in decision making. When an athlete is in rhythm, they not only are shooting better, but they are taking Lower percentage shots because they believe they are able to make them, whereas when someone is shooting poorly they will limit themselves to higher percentage shots.

Take for example the type of shot information available today from companies like SportsVu. They can track player shot position from over 2,000 points on the floor as well as the exact distance of defenders within a matter of inches.

IF you tell me that the study accounted for similar shot selection AND similar defensive coverage, then I'll buy it.

However, without that data incorporated it's not sufficiently structured to be helpful.

The Free throw study has a shockingly small set of parameters for actual comparison. Yes, the total sample size is large, but the question of the first vs second free throw is not enough to establish whether a player is in rhythm or not. Making 1 FT is not an indication of being in rhythm, and it contaminates the sample significantly to do use that as a base line. Take those percentages for 3 shots after making 2/3 for people shooting 6+ FT's per night and you might have something.

Statistical analysis in the NBA is in it's infancy, and it relies heavily upon highly granular data to be anywhere near accurate. The fact is that sort of data has NOT been available until very recent years. So pulling out some dusty statistical analysis from the prehistoric era is going to be suspect.

Guppyfighter
02-28-2013, 05:08 PM
Yes, this study is horribly flawed as it does not take into account shot location, or shifts in defensive coverage. It doesn't factor in the influence of cognitive shifts in decision making. When an athlete is in rhythm, they not only are shooting better, but they are taking Lower percentage shots because they believe they are able to make them, whereas when someone is shooting poorly they will limit themselves to higher percentage shots.

Take for example the type of shot information available today from companies like SportsVu. They can track player shot position from over 2,000 points on the floor as well as the exact distance of defenders within a matter of inches.

IF you tell me that the study accounted for similar shot selection AND similar defensive coverage, then I'll buy it.

However, without that data incorporated it's not sufficiently structured to be helpful.

The Free throw study has a shockingly small set of parameters for actual comparison. Yes, the total sample size is large, but the question of the first vs second free throw is not enough to establish whether a player is in rhythm or not. Making 1 FT is not an indication of being in rhythm, and it contaminates the sample significantly to do use that as a base line. Take those percentages for 3 shots after making 2/3 for people shooting 6+ FT's per night and you might have something.

Statistical analysis in the NBA is in it's infancy, and it relies heavily upon highly granular data to be anywhere near accurate. The fact is that sort of data has NOT been available until very recent years. So pulling out some dusty statistical analysis from the prehistoric era is going to be suspect.

It's not very flawed at all. The hot hand assumes you are in the zone and won't miss most of your shots for whatever reason. This study shows regardless of what happens it is going to follow a normal data set.

Your entire argument is conjecture and predicated on assumptions so I think it's pretty ****ing funny that you are calling a study flawed when you want people to accept the position based on "I have played before" and "you can tell when they are feeling it."

mike_noodles
02-28-2013, 05:34 PM
No, just statistical variation. Is heads "hot" when you are flipping a coin.

The unseen forces of the universe feel bad for you.

Guppyfighter
02-28-2013, 05:35 PM
The unseen forces of the universe feel bad for you.

The unseen forces of the universe don't care about us or exist.

jericho
02-28-2013, 05:42 PM
Wikipedia admins fix everything that is edited wrong very quickly. I updated my old high schools wikipedia page and with in five hours they fixed every edit.

Secondly, if you don't believe the actual page on wikipedia, it would not be hard to find the actual study.

Ok you did answer my first point but you didn't answer my 2nd one.

Guppyfighter
02-28-2013, 05:52 PM
Ok you did answer my first point but you didn't answer my 2nd one.


I don't need to be a five star ref to know when food tastes like **** or a movie director to know a bad movie.

Anyways, I also doubt these guys never picked up a basketball and shot it around.

ChiTownPacerFan
02-28-2013, 06:10 PM
Basketball is played by human beings, not computers. There are more factors at play than just statistics and probability. Human beings are incredibly complicated and have an almost infinite number of variables affecting their performance. A player may be a 40% 3 point shooter over his 12 year career, but that doesn't mean that every shot he takes has exactly a 40% chance of going in. If you believe that, you're unbelievably myopic. There are countless psychological issues, physical issues, or life situations that could positively or negatively affect a player in a given game.... I don't know if you want to call that literally a "hot hand". It's not like NBA Jam where a guy makes 3 shots in a row and automatically he's "on fire". But to say it's all statistics and statistical variation egregiously ignores the human element of a game that is, in fact, played by humans.

heyman321
02-28-2013, 06:11 PM
We are just speaking in generalities. If a specific contested fade away shot has a 15 percent chance to go in, it will go in 15 percent of the time regardless of previous shots.

Of course every specific shot has different percentages, but those percentages do not change based on how you are feeling.

Is being hot not largely perceptual? Shooting a basketball requires so much perceptual effort in analyzing several factors that are dynamic and changing, it isn't just pure muscle memory. If that specific shot has a 15% of going in, but the next time you are in that exact situation in that exact same space and angle, if every external circumstance outside actual player is the same, there is no reason it going in will not be a higher percentage shot.

Doesn't your coin example have a flaw in that there are always two outcomes, with it landing heads or tails? If a rhino was charging at you and you flipped it, yeah it may cause you throw it up quick, but over time if it's maybe above a sample of ~200 or more trials, it's going to be 50% both ways. But basketball isn't a miss or not miss thing, or else everyone would be shooting 50%.

I mean, look at Steph Curry yesterday and say it doesn't exist. Before he threw up his last three 3 point attempts, I knew they were going in. Everyone knew. That can't be boiled down to statistical variation to a normal curve.

Edit: btw where is the link to the study? I am curious of the reasoning of why they can think shooting can be thought of as a normalized thing.

crewfan13
02-28-2013, 07:32 PM
We are just speaking in generalities. If a specific contested fade away shot has a 15 percent chance to go in, it will go in 15 percent of the time regardless of previous shots.

Of course every specific shot has different percentages, but those percentages do not change based on how you are feeling.

I didn't mean it that way. I was speaking in generalities too. I didn't mean that a full courter had a 45% chance of going in. What I meant was that lets assume the same shot is taken in this circumstance.

But what you're saying has merit over the full season. Yes, over a full season, you'll typically shoot about the same percentage as the last season especially for a veteran player.(You can add a little in for improvement if you want). That is all most likely true, but the hot hand isn't a phenomena that lasts for the entire season. If goes in streaks. And if you look at stats of players, even through quarters of games, you'll see that they will clump together makes and misses relatively often. I'm not talking that you have to 5 in a row to be hot. I think most people would agree that something like 4/5 is hot. You may say that making or missing clumps of shots is a statistical variation. I would say that indicates someone is hot. When it happens relatively often, I have a hard time chalking in up to random variations.


It's not very flawed at all. The hot hand assumes you are in the zone and won't miss most of your shots for whatever reason. This study shows regardless of what happens it is going to follow a normal data set.

Your entire argument is conjecture and predicated on assumptions so I think it's pretty ****ing funny that you are calling a study flawed when you want people to accept the position based on "I have played before" and "you can tell when they are feeling it."

I think the study is flawed because it bases the thought of whether or not you're hot on number of changes in the sequence of shooting. Like I said in an example previously that you never responded to, here is an example.

Sequence 1 HHHMHHMHHHMHHHM In this sequence, you have 8 changes between hit and miss. And you also have the player shooting 11 for 15

Sequence 2 MMHHMMHHMMHHMMH In this sequence, you have 8 changes between the sequence, the player shot 7 for 15.

As far as the shooting goes, you would probably say that Player 1 was hot, and Player 2 was pretty average. But assuming I was reading that portion of the study correctly, they would both be considered average because they both resulted in average amounts of sequence changes. Maybe its a difference in how you define hot, but to me, a guy who goes 11-15 probably has pretty hot that night.

ThaDubs
02-28-2013, 07:45 PM
I think it depends on how you feel going in. If you're having an off night it normally means that you started off bad and you lose confidence. Everybody says in the 3-point contest it's most important to start out hot because it does a lot for your confidence. It's easier to watch your shot go in once you see 2-3 go in and you can imagine your next one going it. Once you start knocking down shots you get more confident and your stroke feels smoother that's when you're "hot".

Guppyfighter
02-28-2013, 07:55 PM
NBA players all have a lot of confidence. That's the one thing professional athletes are not lacking in.

D-Leethal
02-28-2013, 09:32 PM
NBA players all have a lot of confidence. That's the one thing professional athletes are not lacking in.

Not when they are in the midst of a cold streak.

Oh wait I'm sorry, I meant to say when they are in the midst of a negative statistical variation.

Guppyfighter
02-28-2013, 09:33 PM
Not when they are in the midst of a cold streak.

Oh wait I'm sorry, I meant to say when they are in the midst of a negative statistical variation.

Well, yeah, if you want to phrase it like that, sure. But they still have confident.

They are NBA players.

D-Leethal
02-28-2013, 09:37 PM
Well, yeah, if you want to phrase it like that, sure. But they still have confident.

They are NBA players.

Where are the stats to back that claim buddy?

'They are NBA players' is not significant statistical evidence to tell me NBA players have confidence.

Guppyfighter
02-28-2013, 09:40 PM
Where are the stats to back that claim buddy?

'They are NBA players' is not significant statistical evidence to tell me NBA players have confidence.

This is my eye test. Most NBA players who don't have confidence end up like Royce White and never make it. These guys are the cream of the crop and were praised and adored for their playing ability. You have guys like Austin Rivers thinking they don't suck.

D-Leethal
02-28-2013, 09:43 PM
This is my eye test. Most NBA players who don't have confidence end up like Royce White and never make it. These guys are the cream of the crop and were praised and adored for their playing ability. You have guys like Austin Rivers thinking they don't suck.

Your eye test ain't gonna cut it.

Guppyfighter
02-28-2013, 09:44 PM
Your eye test ain't gonna cut it.

Okay, fair enough. Do you believe NBA players aren't confident and if so, why?

D-Leethal
02-28-2013, 09:48 PM
Okay, fair enough. Do you believe NBA players aren't confident and if so, why?

I think their confidence wavers. I have watched Jason Kidd make his last 9 out of 60 3 pointers and he wants no part shooting the ball anymore while he was drilling clutch 3s out of the *** with the game on the line earlier in the season, now he passes them up every chance he gets. I saw Ronnie Brewer and Landry Fields hide from the ball and cringe when they were left open in the corner.

I think NBA players are constantly confident they can get laid after the game, I do not think their confidence is a constant on the court.

You seem to try to analyze the human element out of the game.

Guppyfighter
02-28-2013, 09:54 PM
I think their confidence wavers. I have watched Jason Kidd make his last 9 out of 60 3 pointers and he wants no part shooting the ball anymore while he was drilling clutch 3s out of the *** with the game on the line earlier in the season, now he passes them up every chance he gets. I saw Ronnie Brewer and Landry Fields hide from the ball and cringe when they were left open in the corner.

I think NBA players are constantly confident they can get laid after the game, I do not think their confidence is a constant on the court.

You seem to try to analyze the human element out of the game.

I have seen some cases with Pau of not even looking at the hoop when he has the ball. I think generally NBA players are confident, there are obvious exceptions, but I do not think a neutral confidence level affects play.

I am going to use anecdotal evidence, but when I played baseball, I was nervous when ever it was an RBI situation. However, I knocked most of the runs in. I never believed me being nervous affected my abilities and that is because my mechanics are the same and my talent level was a constant. I can see it affecting a player to not take a shot, but not the ability to knock it down.

We can agree to disagree on this because there is nothing quantitative about this.

Tkwod5
02-28-2013, 10:04 PM
good post lakers4sho.. yea i think it really exists. playing bball alot myself i find that when i hit a few shots in a row it feels like the net is alot bigger and they just keep going down smoothly.

torocan
03-02-2013, 09:14 AM
It's not very flawed at all. The hot hand assumes you are in the zone and won't miss most of your shots for whatever reason. This study shows regardless of what happens it is going to follow a normal data set.

That's a ridiculous argument. Being "hot" just means that you are shooting a higher percentage of your shots than normal. If you shoot 30% from 3, that night you might shoot 50% from 3... however, it doesn't mean that your half-court shots are going in at a 50% clip, nor that being defended isn't going to alter that shooting percentage vs being uncontested.

Hot shooters can STILL miss. They just have a better chance of making that particular shot for those circumstances.

Take that data set and analyze it in a more granular fashion and I'll be more interested. For example, like they did in THIS particular shooting study where they show the impact of pressure vs actual contesting of shots.

http://www.d3coder.com/thecity/2012/10/11/hand-down-man-down-new-source-of-nba-data-reveals-critical-detail-for-more-effective-shot-defense/

Or this paper from the Sloan Analytics conference where they look at actual shooting success in a truly granular fashion...

http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Goldsberry_Sloan_Submission.pdf


Your entire argument is conjecture and predicated on assumptions so I think it's pretty ****ing funny that you are calling a study flawed when you want people to accept the position based on "I have played before" and "you can tell when they are feeling it."

No, it's not based upon conjecture. It's based upon the idea that in order to extract statistically meaningful data, you have to construct a model that adequately represents the question you're attempting to answer.

1) Define "streak shooter"
2) Use a data set that will meaningfully allow you to determine this.
3) Use a set of parameters that allow you to discard the "noise".

If your definition of "streak shooter" is inadequate, or your choice of data set is inappropriate, or you define parameters that do not directly relate to the question asked, then the study is flawed.

The question should not have been "does X player have a higher FG% after sinking Y consecutive shots" as that question does not adequately circumscribe the question of streak shooting.

The question should probably have been more along the lines of "Does X player's FG% increase when all else remains equal after shooting Y consecutive similar shots?"

So, Player X sinks 3 consecutive lay ups. Then they miss 3 jumpers.

How is THAT helpful?

Surprise, it's NOT.

Poorly constructed study. Simple as that.