San Antonio Spurs @ Utah Jazz - Mon. Feb 12th 7pm MST

[Siro]

This is a good point.
When I played and "my hand got hot" my confidence went up which imo helps my shot.
When I'm not feeling confident and I'm hesitant to shoot I shoot worse. And vice versa

How does confidence change the mechanics of the shot? Ingles shot something like 43% from the three. He worked all summer on his shot, and that increased his percentage a tiny bit. Has little to do with confidence, unless confidence is something that adds 2% to your shot, which you wouldn't be able to tell without looking at stats.

Sometimes player will hit a bunch in a row, other times they'll miss a bunch. As players are just human, they have poor natural understanding of statistics. So they attribute normal statistical distribution with being on or off on any particular night.

Now I might be wrong. But as far as I know, nobody has been able to provide good evidence for the hot hand. However, given how widespread belief in the hot hand is, you'd think it's been confirmed by data ten times over.

 

[Siro]

Professionals shooting a basketball is not the same as a "fair coin" toss. Let's not forget the fundamental rules of probability.

I literally said that in the post you quoted, and explained why it doesn't matter (variability evens out over a large enough sample).

 

[Engorged On Unborn Gore]

Some of the plays he made was blatantly selfish though.

Yeah.

Just let him shoot his way out of it. His efficiency is going to improve.

 

[Engorged On Unborn Gore]

Some of the plays he made was blatantly selfish though.

Yeah.

Just let him shoot his way out of it. His efficiency is going to improve.

 

[Engorged On Unborn Gore]

Ingles should get most of the credit for Jazz's winning streak.

This statement is asinine. Gobert is the lynchpin of this streak, and it is not even close.

 

[MDAV28]

Yeah.

Just let him shoot his way out of it. His efficiency is going to improve.

He still is having an efficient season for a rookie especially a high-usage rookie.

 

[Siro]

He still is having an efficient season for a rookie especially a high-usage rookie.

Yep, context. It's like saying Harden is inefficient because he's at 45%.

Basic stats are meaningless without context.

 

[MDAV28]

Yep, context. It's like saying Harden is inefficient because he's at 45%.

Basic stats are meaningless without context.

There's 26 players scoring 19+ a game with a eFG over 50%. 18 of them are all-stars this season. Donovan is also one of them.

Agreed on context.

 

[fishonjazz]

How does confidence change the mechanics of the shot? Ingles shot something like 43% from the three. He worked all summer on his shot, and that increased his percentage a tiny bit. Has little to do with confidence, unless confidence is something that adds 2% to your shot, which you wouldn't be able to tell without looking at stats.

Sometimes player will hit a bunch in a row, other times they'll miss a bunch. As players are just human, they have poor natural understanding of statistics. So they attribute normal statistical distribution with being on or off on any particular night.

Now I might be wrong. But as far as I know, nobody has been able to provide good evidence for the hot hand. However, given how widespread belief in the hot hand is, you'd think it's been confirmed by data ten times over.

I don't know how to explain it. What I do know is that I shoot better when I'm confident rather than anxious/nervous/hesitant/etc

 

[Ron Mexico]

I don't know how to explain it. What I do know is that I shoot better when I'm confident rather than anxious/nervous/hesitant/etc

Yeah but if you have missed a bunch and then make one does that change your confidence? If you miss one does it change your confidence? Are you unable to make one if you are not confident? Are you capable of missing when you are confident?

Those are the problems with a hot hand idea. I think there is something to confidence in your shot but confidence in your shot also leads to worse shot selection. Most "heat check" shots are terrible shots and usually seem like they miss.

I also think most NBA shooters are confident enough in their shot regardless that they will keep shooting and assume the next one will go in and they will be on a streak.

That is why I think all players should always take good shots and keep shooting regardless of what their last shot did. I think there are times to feed the hot hand as well but that is more when someone is abusing the guy guarding them more than hot shooting. I still want them taking good shots, not bad selection ones.

 

[Siro]

I don't know how to explain it. What I do know is that I shoot better when I'm confident rather than anxious/nervous/hesitant/etc

Ya, I know you think that...

That's the whole point. The concept exists because of human psychology, not because confidence actually makes you more accurate. I play basketball too. I know that feeling when you think you can hit anything after hitting a few in a row.

 

[colton]

Have you watched Joe Ingles play?

If you dont believe in the hot hand, then you dont believe confidence has any part in shooting success or failure. It clearly does. If you dont think it does, then you havent played basketball.

I don't know how to explain it. What I do know is that I shoot better when I'm confident rather than anxious/nervous/hesitant/etc

Is there evidence of that, though? Aside from your feelings? That's what math and statistics is about. It's a simple enough question: does someone's likelihood of making the next shot increase when he has made a previous shot (or two previous shots, etc.)? And I'm with Siro--there's no evidence that it does.

 

[Ellipse]

The "Hot Hand" does exits. The mental variable impacting a player's shooting success becomes part of the overall statistical average if the sample size is large (season or career average). However, the mental aspect cannot be ignored over the case of a single game or several games.

People are not coins. Case in point, the odds of the 19-28 Jazz winning 10 games in a row was 8579 to 1 using their starting win percentage of .4042 -- if people were coins, we wouldn't live long enough to see such a run.

 

[colton]

The "Hot Hand" does exits.

Prove it. You can even do an experiment with yourself, if you play. Next time you are feeling hot, keep track of whether the next shot goes in or out. I'll bet that if you do that a significant number of times (100-200?), you'll find the percentage is no different than your regular shooting percentage.

 

[colton]

OK, I'll relent a little. I found this Wikipedia article which shows that there is some recent evidence that a small hot hand effect may exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot-hand_fallacy

 

[Siro]

The "Hot Hand" does exits. The mental variable impacting a player's shooting success becomes part of the overall statistical average if the sample size is large (season or career average). However, the mental aspect cannot be ignored over the case of a single game or several games.

People are not coins. Case in point, the odds of the 19-28 Jazz winning 10 games in a row was 8579 to 1 using their starting win percentage of .4042 -- if people were coins, we wouldn't live long enough to see such a run.

The "Hot Hand" does exits. The mental variable impacting a player's shooting success becomes part of the overall statistical average if the sample size is large (season or career average). However, the mental aspect cannot be ignored over the case of a single game or several games.

People are not coins. Case in point, the odds of the 19-28 Jazz winning 10 games in a row was 8579 to 1 using their starting win percentage of .4042 -- if people were coins, we wouldn't live long enough to see such a run.

Anyone can download data from NBA.com and then analyze it. This gotta be the easiest thing in the world to confirm. And yet...

 

[Ellipse]

Posted this in another thread. This is from a study that refutes the "Hot hands to not exist" studies.

Joshua Miller

Bocconi University - Department of Decision Sciences; IGIER - Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research
Adam Sanjurjo

Universidad de Alicante - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico
Date Written: November 15, 2016
Abstract

We prove that a subtle but substantial bias exists in a standard measure of the conditional dependence of present outcomes on streaks of past outcomes in sequential data. The magnitude of this novel form of selection bias generally decreases as the sequence gets longer, but increases in streak length, and remains substantial for a range of sequence lengths often used in empirical work. The bias has important implications for the literature that investigates incorrect beliefs in sequential decision making---most notably the Hot Hand Fallacy and the Gambler's Fallacy. Upon correcting for the bias, the conclusions of prominent studies in the hot hand fallacy literature are reversed. The bias also provides a novel structural explanation for how belief in the law of small numbers can persist in the face of experience.

 

[freakazoid]

Couple a dudes really nerding up this thread.

The hot hand is absolutely a thing. Just like in baseball, when you go to bat. If you go up there knowing you're going to hit the ball, you're percentages are way better than when you go to the plate uncertain. I don't know how this can even be a debate.

 

[Ellipse]

Anyone can download data from NBA.com and then analyze it. This gotta be the easiest thing in the world to confirm. And yet...

No, it isn't the easiest thing in the world to confirm, because extracting the mental aspects as a shot predictor is damn tough to analyze.

 

[Siro]

Posted this in another thread. This is from a study that refutes the "Hot hands to not exist" studies.

Joshua Miller

Bocconi University - Department of Decision Sciences; IGIER - Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research
Adam Sanjurjo

Universidad de Alicante - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico
Date Written: November 15, 2016
Abstract

We prove that a subtle but substantial bias exists in a standard measure of the conditional dependence of present outcomes on streaks of past outcomes in sequential data. The magnitude of this novel form of selection bias generally decreases as the sequence gets longer, but increases in streak length, and remains substantial for a range of sequence lengths often used in empirical work. The bias has important implications for the literature that investigates incorrect beliefs in sequential decision making---most notably the Hot Hand Fallacy and the Gambler's Fallacy. Upon correcting for the bias, the conclusions of prominent studies in the hot hand fallacy literature are reversed. The bias also provides a novel structural explanation for how belief in the law of small numbers can persist in the face of experience.

Thanks for being the first to try to advance an argument that isn't "it's totally true because I just feel it". I'll have to dig up the paper you referenced and read through it. It's making some bold claims about pretty established principles.