Shooting Streaks: Do they exist?

[Saint Cy of JFC]

My hypothesis was that hitting any number of shots in a row does not improve your chances on the following shot. You'll still hit your percentages on any shot in a large sample regardless of whether you hit or missed the previous few shots. That's how I'm defining it.

If the hot hand is real, then after hitting, say, 5 shots, the 6th should go in at a higher rate than your normal fg%. This should show up regardless of any complexities because we're averaging out all the times you've hit that many shots, ideally.

But it's shown most players take harder shots and become more closely guarded once they hit multiple shots in a row. I think those "complexities" would be significant. That's why I like the idea of doing the study off the 3 point contest, because there arent as many variables.

 

[sahlensguy]

My hypothesis was that hitting any number of shots in a row does not improve your chances on the following shot. You'll still hit your percentages on any shot in a large sample regardless of whether you hit or missed the previous few shots. That's how I'm defining it.

If the hot hand is real, then after hitting, say, 5 shots, the 6th should go in at a higher rate than your normal fg%. This should show up regardless of any complexities because we're averaging out all the times you've hit that many shots, ideally.

What is one's "normal fg%"? A players' career % ? Their latest seasonal % ? Their latest monthly or weekly % ?

All players have peaks and valleys. Hot hands usually don't happen in the valleys, so why guage the probability of the chances of a hot shooters' 'next shot' going in, based o %s that include those valleys and or early career?

 

[Siro]

But it's shown most players take harder shots and become more closely guarded once they hit multiple shots in a row. I think those "complexities" would be significant. That's why I like the idea of doing the study off the 3 point contest, because there arent as many variables.

I understand. It's a good point, like some others made. I also love the idea of studying the three point contest and such.

But I'm not sure I'm sold on that explanation. There is no point where any number of made shots improves the next one. You'd still see improvement after 2 or 3 shots, before defenses hone in. Or maybe not. I'm not claiming that the hot hand has been conclusively disproven. Just that there are good reasons to doubt it.

 

[Siro]

What is one's "normal fg%"? A players' career % ? Their latest seasonal % ? Their latest monthly or weekly % ?

All players have peaks and valleys. Hot hands usually don't happen in the valleys, so why guage the probability of the chances of a hot shooters' 'next shot' going in, based o %s that include those valleys and or early career?

But if we're measuring streaks, what does it matter if they happen in a peak or a trough? Also, I'm not sure more constrains on which FG% matters. As long as you're being consistent, the fg% after hitting several shots should be better than after missing a bunch of shots.

 

[Siro]

I'm pretty tired. Wish I had @Ron Mexico's debate endurance.

 

[sahlensguy]

But if we're measuring streaks, what does it matter if they happen in a peak or a trough? Also, I'm not sure more constrains on which FG% matters. As long as you're being consistent, the fg% after hitting several shots should be better than after missing a bunch of shots.

Hitting a bunch of shots or even having a career year increases a players fg%.

You said "My hypothesis was that hitting any number of shots in a row does not improve your chances on the following shot."

If this is true than a players chance of hitting his next shot is directly related to his shooting percentage. A players shooting percentage differs from year to year though and month to month. So when you say " a players normal shooting %", what do you mean by "normal"?

 

[Ron Mexico]

I'm pretty tired. Wish I had @Ron Mexico's debate endurance.

Haha, it comes and goes for me. It depends on how entertained I wish to be.

 

[Ellipse]

Plotting rolling 8 or 10-shot averages for players known as "scorers" should show if there is a trend. This ought to be easy to do for someone with access to the data.

 

[sahlensguy]

Plotting rolling 8 or 10-shot averages for players known as "scorers" should show if there is a trend. This ought to be easy to do for someone with access to the data.

Top of the list is a guy like Hood.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot-hand_fallacy

Glancing over that there seems to be more support in the last few years FOR the hot hand. I thought I had read something about it the last year or so.

Edit:

Dang, and here I was, 45 posts in thinking that link hadn't already been posted.

 

[sahlensguy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot-hand_fallacy

Glancing over that there seems to be more support in the last few years FOR the hot hand. I thought I had read something about it the last year or so.

Edit:

Dang, and here I was, 45 posts in thinking that link hadn't already been posted.

What is the difference between a shooter with a hot hand, and a steaky shooter?

 

[GVC]

My hypothesis was that hitting any number of shots in a row does not improve your chances on the following shot. You'll still hit your percentages on any shot in a large sample regardless of whether you hit or missed the previous few shots. That's how I'm defining it.

If the hot hand is real, then after hitting, say, 5 shots, the 6th should go in at a higher rate than your normal fg%. This should show up regardless of any complexities because we're averaging out all the times you've hit that many shots, ideally.

This may depend on how you define 'normal field goal percentage.' If you remove shooting streaks from the total population of shots, the players field goal percentage will be lower than their overall average field goal percentage.