What's new
By:
Filters

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

colton said:
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.
Click to expand...
Someone did an updated study on it and I'm pretty sure there is evidence for it. The original article (I believe it was some study from the 1980's taht everyone references when saying there is no hot hand) on it was flawed because it didnt take into account quality of shot. A lot of players get hot, then they take bad shots.

It's also just common sense.

Do you believe confidence has any affect on shooting? Do you believe hitting multiple shots in a row increases your confidence?

Edit: I found it. https://www.thecut.com/2016/08/how-researchers-discovered-the-basketball-hot-hand.html
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/presents-19573519/heating-fire-klay-thompson-truth-hot-hand-nba

Those are two different recent stories on studies.

The ESPN one includes a study on 3-point contest and the hot-hand.
 
freakazoid said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry.
 
Ellipse said:
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.
Click to expand...

But things should even out. If the sample is large enough, then you should see SOME increase in the percentage after hitting a few shots, if the effect is real.

I mean, people are saying that you can see with your own eyes the accuracy enhancing effects of confidence. Surely it should show up in stats then.
 
colton said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is there evidence of your God?

How about this. When somebody is dialed in with the basket/feeling the hot hand/however you want to describe it, it's something of a spiritual connection, and sometimes you're more connected than others. I know Siro won't take that seriously, but a religious person should be able to relate somewhat. Kind of like when a writer is feeling inspired compared to having writer's block.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Someone did an updated study on it and I'm pretty sure there is evidence for it. The original article (I believe it was some study from the 1980's taht everyone references when saying there is no hot hand) on it was flawed because it didnt take into account quality of shot. A lot of players get hot, then they take bad shots.

It's also just common sense.

Do you believe confidence has any affect on shooting? Do you believe hitting multiple shots in a row increases your confidence?

Edit: I found it. https://www.thecut.com/2016/08/how-researchers-discovered-the-basketball-hot-hand.html
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/presents-19573519/heating-fire-klay-thompson-truth-hot-hand-nba

Those are two different recent stories on studies.

The ESPN one includes a study on 3-point contest and the hot-hand.
Click to expand...

A 1% increase in your 3 point percentage if you have hit 4 in a row on your 5th shot.
 
colton said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is when you’re pooling aggregate data and trying to generalize those results over the components of the game that people refer to being “hot.” It gets lost in the noise of the statistics. There’s no good way to control for it by creating a definition of what circumstances would qualify for deeming someone hot. If you’re pooling data from a ton of people who individually don’t put up high volumes, it’d be hard to reach a conclusion on someone being “hot” if they have limited shot attempts per minute and they’re spread out through quarters of a game. It’s like defining “crunch time,” sure you’ve got some statistical parameters to work with, but often time the aura of the game will tell you if something is crunch time in a way that statistical parameters could not — it’s a reason why you have final outcomes of a game where a “blowout” ends with an 8-9 point advantage, or a wire-to-wire game looks like a blowout when it wasn’t. So I think there are a handful of scenarios that actually qualify actually measuring that hypothesized phenomenon, and you can’t take a bunch of compiled raw data to determine it.
 
Siro said:
But things should even out. If the sample is large enough, then you should see SOME increase in the percentage after hitting a few shots, if the effect is real.

I mean, people are saying that you can see with your own eyes the accuracy enhancing effects of confidence. Surely it should show up in stats then.
Click to expand...

You have to start with a very large data set (not "sample"). Then you have to define what is a "hot hand" -- is it 3 in row? 4? 5-6? What is "hot"? After you defined hot, then you have to parse all of the data for a list of players and games where they were hot. Then you have to decide what null hypothesis you're testing. Are you testing his chance of making the next shot? Or are you testing the odds of him hitting the game winner? Or do you want to see if his shooting percentage for the remainder of his game shots are above his statistical norm?

Once you have defined "hot" and settled on your "null" (you probably want to test several nulls), then you must break out all of the data into sample sets that satisfy your criteria. Now you can crunch the statistics: Determine the probability distribution -- don't just assume "normal" -- and select the appropriate statistical model to apply.

When you're done, write it up and submit it for you doctoral thesis.
 
Last edited:
vossy_3 said:
Doesn’t matter what people say...

DM is shooting like **** at the moment.

On the other hand Ingles just goes under the radar and is on fire.
Click to expand...

Another special thing about DM. Like some of the greats, he can have an off shooting night, then lock in when crunch time arrives. Shoot with confidence and make an impact after things have not been going well at all. He credited Jinglin' Joe with telling him he needed to keep his head up, and keep shooting. It paid off. Spectacular play down the stretch.
 
lol, hot hand is broadcasters' trick to fool you. a myth, illusion.. a lie you want to believe.
 
colton said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ya there is. The evidence is that my shot goes in more often when I'm confident than not.
 
Siro said:
I don't doubt that some people are cooler and more focused than others under pressure. What I doubt is the concept of the "hot hand".
Click to expand...

So you don't think that a player sometimes shoots better and sometimes shoots worse? Seriously?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top