Hot hand thread

[KGdaBom]

Doncic just made his first shot after his hands went officially cold.

[KGdaBom]

Doncic makes another. Hands no longer cold. That's 3 for me 0 for W4L. Gafford another win for me. 4 for me 0 for W4L.

[KGdaBom]

I've got to go to the store now. I'm done tracking this game. W4L you can carry on if you like or not carry on.

[winforlose]

I've got to go to the store now. I'm done tracking this game. W4L you can carry on if you like or not carry on.

Honestly I haven’t been paying much attention. I am just watching the game and trying to follow the changes to Dallas’s offense with the new guys.

[KGdaBom]

I've got to go to the store now. I'm done tracking this game. W4L you can carry on if you like or not carry on.

Honestly I haven’t been paying much attention. I am just watching the game and trying to follow the changes to Dallas’s offense with the new guys.

This game was quite unsupportive of hot and cold hands. Players with hot hands missed most of their shots. Players with cold hands made most of theirs. I will continue to track this and see how it does.

[KGdaBom]

Checking the box score Hardaway who had the hot hand when I left shot 1-5 the rest of the way. So final count 5 players exhibited the opposite of hot/cold hands. No player continued with hot or cold hands.

[Loaf_of_bread]

Why not PM each other?

We've already done that. This thread is to keep the subject in the open, but only for those who care to look.

No one cares

[KGdaBom]

Why not PM each other?

We've already done that. This thread is to keep the subject in the open, but only for those who care to look.

No one cares

You obviously care because you're reading and responding to the thread.

[winforlose]

Checking the box score Hardaway who had the hot hand when I left shot 1-5 the rest of the way. So final count 5 players exhibited the opposite of hot/cold hands. No player continued with hot or cold hands.

I admire your passion, but I think you are missing things. I keep trying to explain it to you but you don’t seem to hear me.

1. Hot hand is not always a whole game phenomenon. Sometimes guys sit down for a long stretch or get gassed, or don’t get the ball, and the hot hand goes out. Likewise sometimes the cold hand persists (Malik Beasley 0-9,) or sometimes guys find their stroke and get going. The smart teammates are the ones who recognize the trend and respond accordingly. Take today, Luka shot 6-7 in the first quarter and only 2 shots in the 2nd quarter. One of which was a heave. If you don’t feed the hot hand you cannot rely on it later. THJ hit 2 threes in a row and then was benched the rest of the half and a chunk of the third quarter. When he got back in the fire was out. At the same time Luka missed a few 3s in a row and got 2 straight layups (one was uncontested, the other was an and 1 on a low degree of difficulty.) You tell me he is no longer cold based on that, but I say this is not the same thing. You keep trying to break down a complex phenomenon into the simplest terms and ignore me when I try to explain why you are missing the boat.

Another great example is KAT vs Charlotte. When the team was feeding him in the flow he dropped 44 in the first half. In the second half they were forcing him the ball and his energy level obviously dropped as he could be seen laboring to get down the court. Also notice that when Charlotte went on a run and the Wolves went cold everyone started missing. Basketball is a game of momentum. We saw this in the 1st half of today’s Dallas game. In the first quarter everyone saw a hula hoop and couldn’t wait to shoot. In the 2nd quarter a lid was on the rim and everyone was off for several minutes. Good and bad stretches are contagious for a team, which is why basketball is a game of runs. The good teams find what works (be it a play or player,) and keep running it until it stops working. You say this was a bad game for hot hand/cold hand, maybe so. Some games you don’t find or feed the hot hand. Some games you have a power outage and no one is the hot hand (OKC tonight.) You can keep tracking shot trends for as long as you like, but just like Shrink you ignore the nuance and variables to try and make it about luck, and it just doesn’t work that way. For example, AJ Green cannot go 7-8 from deep if he only shoots 4 times in the game.

[winforlose]

https://youtu.be/N94gWuqRqEI?si=vtZz2ViXW-zGkb6n

0:45 second mark.

[winforlose]

This video is perfect for KG and @Shrink

https://youtu.be/I4arVbUb8WA?si=aJcjHw60hBS7bReD

It is a little long, but addresses the problems with the scientific study of the hot hand from 1985. It lays it out well and maybe you will hear it better coming from someone else.

[KGdaBom]

Checking the box score Hardaway who had the hot hand when I left shot 1-5 the rest of the way. So final count 5 players exhibited the opposite of hot/cold hands. No player continued with hot or cold hands.

I admire your passion, but I think you are missing things. I keep trying to explain it to you but you don’t seem to hear me.

1. Hot hand is not always a whole game phenomenon. Sometimes guys sit down for a long stretch or get gassed, or don’t get the ball, and the hot hand goes out. Likewise sometimes the cold hand persists (Malik Beasley 0-9,) or sometimes guys find their stroke and get going. The smart teammates are the ones who recognize the trend and respond accordingly. Take today, Luka shot 6-7 in the first quarter and only 2 shots in the 2nd quarter. One of which was a heave. If you don’t feed the hot hand you cannot rely on it later. THJ hit 2 threes in a row and then was benched the rest of the half and a chunk of the third quarter. When he got back in the fire was out. At the same time Luka missed a few 3s in a row and got 2 straight layups (one was uncontested, the other was an and 1 on a low degree of difficulty.) You tell me he is no longer cold based on that, but I say this is not the same thing. You keep trying to break down a complex phenomenon into the simplest terms and ignore me when I try to explain why you are missing the boat.

Another great example is KAT vs Charlotte. When the team was feeding him in the flow he dropped 44 in the first half. In the second half they were forcing him the ball and his energy level obviously dropped as he could be seen laboring to get down the court. Also notice that when Charlotte went on a run and the Wolves went cold everyone started missing. Basketball is a game of momentum. We saw this in the 1st half of today’s Dallas game. In the first quarter everyone saw a hula hoop and couldn’t wait to shoot. In the 2nd quarter a lid was on the rim and everyone was off for several minutes. Good and bad stretches are contagious for a team, which is why basketball is a game of runs. The good teams find what works (be it a play or player,) and keep running it until it stops working. You say this was a bad game for hot hand/cold hand, maybe so. Some games you don’t find or feed the hot hand. Some games you have a power outage and no one is the hot hand (OKC tonight.) You can keep tracking shot trends for as long as you like, but just like Shrink you ignore the nuance and variables to try and make it about luck, and it just doesn’t work that way. For example, AJ Green cannot go 7-8 from deep if he only shoots 4 times in the game.

You keep making excuses for it not working. IF IT'S NOT CONSISTENT AND RELIABLE IT'S MEANINGLESS. Yes I know it's not the whole game. I'm just establishing a baseline. It takes 3 made shots out of 4 to have a hot hand 3 missed shots out of 4 to have a cold hand. Once established I'm testing how often it lasts for the next 4 shots. So far It doesn't so it's trending towards being a useless MYTH.

[KGdaBom]

This video is perfect for KG and @Shrink

https://youtu.be/I4arVbUb8WA?si=aJcjHw60hBS7bReD

It is a little long, but addresses the problems with the scientific study of the hot hand from 1985. It lays it out well and maybe you will hear it better coming from someone else.

It was mostly terrible, but I love how he says it's hard to detect the hot hand. He says sample sizes in basketball are too small to be meaningful. If you can't get meaningful sample sizes and can't detect it it's worthless and meaningless.

He also says things like just because there's no evidence it's real doesn't mean it's not real. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence is his catch phrase. He could be right, but that puts us right back in the mess of not being able to detect it so it's useless.

In summation per this video: It's unlikely, but possible that hot or cold hands exist, but there's no way to truly know when a hot or cold hand is active and make use of it.

This is the guy you turn to to support your hot hand belief. I can't make this up.

[winforlose]

This video is perfect for KG and @Shrink

https://youtu.be/I4arVbUb8WA?si=aJcjHw60hBS7bReD

It is a little long, but addresses the problems with the scientific study of the hot hand from 1985. It lays it out well and maybe you will hear it better coming from someone else.

It was mostly terrible, but I love how he says it's hard to detect the hot hand. He says sample sizes in basketball are too small to be meaningful. If you can't get meaningful sample sizes and can't detect it it's worthless and meaningless.

He also says things like just because there's no evidence it's real doesn't mean it's not real. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence is his catch phrase. He could be right, but that puts us right back in the mess of not being able to detect it so it's useless.

In summation per this video: It's unlikely, but possible that hot or cold hands exist, but there's no way to truly know when a hot or cold hand is active and make use of it.

This is the guy you turn to to support your hot hand belief. I can't make this up.

If that is what you took from that then

I mean honestly, the parts about not counting layups or uncontested dunks, the parts about the free throws and the increased percentage with 20 seconds more rest. The part about not all shooters being made the same so the variation is more complex than a coin flip. There is much more in there as well. I also provided a video on an NBA PG talking about how NBA PGs look for the hot hand. Again, coaches teach players to look for it. This is getting

[KGdaBom]

This video is perfect for KG and @Shrink

https://youtu.be/I4arVbUb8WA?si=aJcjHw60hBS7bReD

It is a little long, but addresses the problems with the scientific study of the hot hand from 1985. It lays it out well and maybe you will hear it better coming from someone else.

It was mostly terrible, but I love how he says it's hard to detect the hot hand. He says sample sizes in basketball are too small to be meaningful. If you can't get meaningful sample sizes and can't detect it it's worthless and meaningless.

He also says things like just because there's no evidence it's real doesn't mean it's not real. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence is his catch phrase. He could be right, but that puts us right back in the mess of not being able to detect it so it's useless.

In summation per this video: It's unlikely, but possible that hot or cold hands exist, but there's no way to truly know when a hot or cold hand is active and make use of it.

This is the guy you turn to to support your hot hand belief. I can't make this up.

If that is what you took from that then

I mean honestly, the parts about not counting layups or uncontested dunks, the parts about the free throws and the increased percentage with 20 seconds more rest. The part about not all shooters being made the same so the variation is more complex than a coin flip. There is much more in there as well. I also provided a video on an NBA PG talking about how NBA PGs look for the hot hand. Again, coaches teach players to look for it. This is getting

The very research you used to support your stance said It's hard to detect the hot hand. Sample sizes in basketball are too small to be meaningful. He also said their was no true evidence of hot hands. He excused it with his catch phrase absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. This is your hand picked research for supporting your stance.

Bang your head all you want, but I think I provided a pretty good baseline of 3 out of 4 to be hot or cold. I tracked every instance of a player being hot to see if he remained hot and every instance of a player being cold to see if he remained cold. Every time the player did not maintain his hot or cold status. Out of random chance the players should have maintained 2 of the five times but they didn't. Why do you get frustrated with me maintaining my belief when all the evidence points to my belief being correct.

[winforlose]

It was mostly terrible, but I love how he says it's hard to detect the hot hand. He says sample sizes in basketball are too small to be meaningful. If you can't get meaningful sample sizes and can't detect it it's worthless and meaningless.

He also says things like just because there's no evidence it's real doesn't mean it's not real. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence is his catch phrase. He could be right, but that puts us right back in the mess of not being able to detect it so it's useless.

In summation per this video: It's unlikely, but possible that hot or cold hands exist, but there's no way to truly know when a hot or cold hand is active and make use of it.

This is the guy you turn to to support your hot hand belief. I can't make this up.

If that is what you took from that then

I mean honestly, the parts about not counting layups or uncontested dunks, the parts about the free throws and the increased percentage with 20 seconds more rest. The part about not all shooters being made the same so the variation is more complex than a coin flip. There is much more in there as well. I also provided a video on an NBA PG talking about how NBA PGs look for the hot hand. Again, coaches teach players to look for it. This is getting

The very research you used to support your stance said It's hard to detect the hot hand. Sample sizes in basketball are too small to be meaningful. He also said their was no true evidence of hot hands. He excused it with his catch phrase absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. This is your hand picked research for supporting your stance.

Bang your head all you want, but I think I provided a pretty good baseline of 3 out of 4 to be hot or cold. I tracked every instance of a player being hot to see if he remained hot and every instance of a player being cold to see if he remained cold. Every time the player did not maintain his hot or cold status. Out of random chance the players should have maintained 2 of the five times but they didn't. Why do you get frustrated with me maintaining my belief when all the evidence points to my belief being correct.

You still didn’t acknowledge any of the things I pointed out. You refuse to acknowledge that NBA players and coach believe, teach, and react to the hot hand. You refuse to acknowledge shots like uncontested layups have no barring on hot or cold. I could go on and on. I would say the conversation is getting circular, but that is an understatement. If you don’t like then how about

[KGdaBom]

If that is what you took from that then

I mean honestly, the parts about not counting layups or uncontested dunks, the parts about the free throws and the increased percentage with 20 seconds more rest. The part about not all shooters being made the same so the variation is more complex than a coin flip. There is much more in there as well. I also provided a video on an NBA PG talking about how NBA PGs look for the hot hand. Again, coaches teach players to look for it. This is getting

The very research you used to support your stance said It's hard to detect the hot hand. Sample sizes in basketball are too small to be meaningful. He also said their was no true evidence of hot hands. He excused it with his catch phrase absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. This is your hand picked research for supporting your stance.

Bang your head all you want, but I think I provided a pretty good baseline of 3 out of 4 to be hot or cold. I tracked every instance of a player being hot to see if he remained hot and every instance of a player being cold to see if he remained cold. Every time the player did not maintain his hot or cold status. Out of random chance the players should have maintained 2 of the five times but they didn't. Why do you get frustrated with me maintaining my belief when all the evidence points to my belief being correct.

You still didn’t acknowledge any of the things I pointed out. You refuse to acknowledge that NBA players and coach believe, teach, and react to the hot hand. You refuse to acknowledge shots like uncontested layups have no barring on hot or cold. I could go on and on. I would say the conversation is getting circular, but that is an understatement. If you don’t like then how about

Of course players and coaches believe in that. That doesn't mean anything. You have so many stipulations on hot hands that it is just ridiculous. If they get a layup or dunk it doesn't count. If they rest it doesn't count. If they don't shoot for a while it doesn't count. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. I acknowledge all of those things you talk about. It still doesn't support hot hands being a detectable, useful, phenomena.

[winforlose]

The very research you used to support your stance said It's hard to detect the hot hand. Sample sizes in basketball are too small to be meaningful. He also said their was no true evidence of hot hands. He excused it with his catch phrase absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. This is your hand picked research for supporting your stance.

Bang your head all you want, but I think I provided a pretty good baseline of 3 out of 4 to be hot or cold. I tracked every instance of a player being hot to see if he remained hot and every instance of a player being cold to see if he remained cold. Every time the player did not maintain his hot or cold status. Out of random chance the players should have maintained 2 of the five times but they didn't. Why do you get frustrated with me maintaining my belief when all the evidence points to my belief being correct.

You still didn’t acknowledge any of the things I pointed out. You refuse to acknowledge that NBA players and coach believe, teach, and react to the hot hand. You refuse to acknowledge shots like uncontested layups have no barring on hot or cold. I could go on and on. I would say the conversation is getting circular, but that is an understatement. If you don’t like then how about

You have so many stipulations on hot hands that it is just ridiculous. If they get a layup or dunk it doesn't count. If they rest it doesn't count. If they don't shoot for a while it doesn't count. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. I acknowledge all of those things you talk about. It still doesn't support hot hands being a detectable, useful, phenomena.

Sexton in the first video “we see a guy a make a shot or make two shots and we look to get him the ball.” Identify when a guy is feeling it and try to run your offense for that guy to shoot. When Conley is hitting 3s he keeps taking 3s. If they are defending him at the 3 point line set screens for him. Get him open in his spots and watch him work. If they adjust to take him away odds are someone is open. Feed the hot hand until they force the ball out and then if the player is still hot later rinse and repeat. Your problem is you don’t know what the word myth means.

[KGdaBom]

You still didn’t acknowledge any of the things I pointed out. You refuse to acknowledge that NBA players and coach believe, teach, and react to the hot hand. You refuse to acknowledge shots like uncontested layups have no barring on hot or cold. I could go on and on. I would say the conversation is getting circular, but that is an understatement. If you don’t like then how about

You have so many stipulations on hot hands that it is just ridiculous. If they get a layup or dunk it doesn't count. If they rest it doesn't count. If they don't shoot for a while it doesn't count. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. I acknowledge all of those things you talk about. It still doesn't support hot hands being a detectable, useful, phenomena.

Sexton in the first video “we see a guy a make a shot or make two shots and we look to get him the ball.” Identify when a guy is feeling it and try to run your offense for that guy to shoot. When Conley is hitting 3s he keeps taking 3s. If they are defending him at the 3 point line set screens for him. Get him open in his spots and watch him work. If they adjust to take him away odds are someone is open. Feed the hot hand until they force the ball out and then if the player is still hot later rinse and repeat. Your problem is you don’t know what the word myth means.

According to Sexton it only requires making one or 2 shots to determine he has the hot hand? WOW.

Do players get hot? Yes I can agree with you that players get hot. Is it possible to know when they are hot and for how long they will be hot? Not really. Is the hot/cold hand a consistent, reliable phenomena that you can count on and will it help you win games. I don't think so. I do know what the word myth means. It's something that people believe in that isn't really true. For something to be a myth it requires people believing in it. Without you and the other people that believe in the Hot Hand it couldn't be a myth.

[Folklore]

If that is what you took from that then

I mean honestly, the parts about not counting layups or uncontested dunks, the parts about the free throws and the increased percentage with 20 seconds more rest. The part about not all shooters being made the same so the variation is more complex than a coin flip. There is much more in there as well. I also provided a video on an NBA PG talking about how NBA PGs look for the hot hand. Again, coaches teach players to look for it. This is getting

The very research you used to support your stance said It's hard to detect the hot hand. Sample sizes in basketball are too small to be meaningful. He also said their was no true evidence of hot hands. He excused it with his catch phrase absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. This is your hand picked research for supporting your stance.

Bang your head all you want, but I think I provided a pretty good baseline of 3 out of 4 to be hot or cold. I tracked every instance of a player being hot to see if he remained hot and every instance of a player being cold to see if he remained cold. Every time the player did not maintain his hot or cold status. Out of random chance the players should have maintained 2 of the five times but they didn't. Why do you get frustrated with me maintaining my belief when all the evidence points to my belief being correct.

You still didn’t acknowledge any of the things I pointed out. You refuse to acknowledge that NBA players and coach believe, teach, and react to the hot hand. You refuse to acknowledge shots like uncontested layups have no barring on hot or cold. I could go on and on. I would say the conversation is getting circular, but that is an understatement. If you don’t like then how about

Stay strong brother. Respect for what you're doing.


This is like watching an exorcism though.