Connelly gets his guard he had in DEN! (not Bones...yet)

[KGdaBom]

1. I thought you hate hot and cold hand conversations.

2. A lot of what is happening in the game is Ant going hero ball or Karl not taking enough 3s or rarely taking too many. It is Kyle needing to be benched and Rudy needing to play more PNP and PNR (he is really good at both.) I think you need to accept the fact that not all my opinions are positive, (preemptively I am gonna say I have plenty of positive things to say, I started both the Faith in Finch and Fun Facts and Unreal Stats topics, and was super hyped by the Gobert acquisition.)

3. If something annoys you just skim and skip.

I: I love talking about hot and cold hands to mock them.
2: First of all I know you often talk about positive things. I never accused you of being a negative Nellie. I don't think Ant plays hero ball nearly as often as many on this board seem to think. He's just a scapegoat when things go wrong. Next we've established that KAT should take more threes. We don't need to rehash it every single game. I already know you think Kyle should be benched. You whining about it again serves zero purpose. I wouldn't be annoyed by you talking about Rudy doing PNP and PNR. That has not yet been talked into the ground. Another thing I would love to never hear again is "KAT should never drive to the basket. He gets an offensive foul every time he does." That is a load of crap. KAT drives the basket many times very successfully. To take that out of his game would be a massive mistake.
3: I often do skim and skip. Sometimes I prefer to call people out for habitual, repetitive whining.

1. You can mock it all you want, but AJ green was the hot hand last night for Bucks and they fed him. Mike was ours and we ran the same play 6 times for 6 made 3s. You denying that it exists is like standing in the rain and claiming water isn’t wet.

2. I never said and never will say KAT shouldn’t drive. I think he needs to stop falling when he does, but that is because I want him healthy. I also think KAT should average 10 3s a game and 20 shots a game, because he is a damn fine shooter. End of the day patterns and trends exist and need to be discussed. Otherwise what is the point of this place.

3. As for “repetitive whining,” I don’t call you out for the stuff you do that annoys me, so keep that in mind when calling me out. Skim and skip is your friend in situations like this.

1: I've already proven that trying to base decisions on hot and colds hands is way more often than not worthless. I've tracked hot hands and then shown how quickly they go cold and I've tracked cold hands and shown how quickly they get hot.
2: I never said you think KAT should never drive, but I've probably read 100 posts of people saying he shouldn't. We've established already that KAT should shoot more and shoot many 3s. I don't think it needs any further discussion.
3: How could I possibly annoy you. I'm perfect in every way.
Honestly I probably annoy you when I call people out for habitual, repetitive whining, but I think somebody needs to do it and I will take the kickback from doing it.

W4L I'm not sure you realize it, but I very much appreciate having you on this board. I just think you take things way too far sometimes. I suppose I do that too sometimes.

[winforlose]

I: I love talking about hot and cold hands to mock them.
2: First of all I know you often talk about positive things. I never accused you of being a negative Nellie. I don't think Ant plays hero ball nearly as often as many on this board seem to think. He's just a scapegoat when things go wrong. Next we've established that KAT should take more threes. We don't need to rehash it every single game. I already know you think Kyle should be benched. You whining about it again serves zero purpose. I wouldn't be annoyed by you talking about Rudy doing PNP and PNR. That has not yet been talked into the ground. Another thing I would love to never hear again is "KAT should never drive to the basket. He gets an offensive foul every time he does." That is a load of crap. KAT drives the basket many times very successfully. To take that out of his game would be a massive mistake.
3: I often do skim and skip. Sometimes I prefer to call people out for habitual, repetitive whining.

1. You can mock it all you want, but AJ green was the hot hand last night for Bucks and they fed him. Mike was ours and we ran the same play 6 times for 6 made 3s. You denying that it exists is like standing in the rain and claiming water isn’t wet.

2. I never said and never will say KAT shouldn’t drive. I think he needs to stop falling when he does, but that is because I want him healthy. I also think KAT should average 10 3s a game and 20 shots a game, because he is a damn fine shooter. End of the day patterns and trends exist and need to be discussed. Otherwise what is the point of this place.

3. As for “repetitive whining,” I don’t call you out for the stuff you do that annoys me, so keep that in mind when calling me out. Skim and skip is your friend in situations like this.

1: I've already proven that trying to base decisions on hot and colds hands is way more often than not worthless. I've tracked hot hands and then shown how quickly they go cold and I've tracked cold hands and shown how quickly they get hot.
2: I never said you think KAT should never drive, but I've probably read 100 posts of people saying he shouldn't. We've established already that KAT should shoot more and shoot many 3s. I don't think it needs any further discussion.
3: How could I possibly annoy you. I'm perfect in every way.
Honestly I probably annoy you when I call people out for habitual, repetitive whining, but I think somebody needs to do it and I will take the kickback from doing it.

1. Not gonna lie you sound a bit like a flat earther if that flat earther spent time in orbit and saw for himself the world was round.

2. You gave that example not me. People keep saying it because it is true, and they are frustrated that he doesn’t. They also post things like Karl hit 11 of his last 22 in the last 2 games . As Dane Moore said “a feat noteworthy for the volume as well as the result.” The same topics will come up again and again, that is part of an 82 game season. Especially when those topics relate to our star players and have a major effect on the rotation or outcome.

3. You have been calling people out a lot lately and whining more than 2/3rds of the board including me. You started whole threads just to whine about people not being happy watching bad performances and blowing huge leads. You expect us to have sunshine and rainbows coming out of places where the sun don’t shine just because the most talented team in the NBA doesn’t suck. You need a mirror my friend.

[shrink]

If “hot hands” were real, we would have evidence that someone with a hot hand would be more likely to make their next shot. The paper I linked to showed that was not the case. For example, a player that makes five in a row is not significantly more or less likely to make shot #6 than his standard FG%.

If the phrase doesn’t have predictive value, then it is simply an adjective. Looking back after the fact and saying someone who shot well must have done it because they had a hot hand is simply choosing your own cause for a past effect. That is not logic, and it has as much value as me saying Conley shot well because I was wearing my lucky socks, or KG was doing Santeria.

Worse, calling someone who disagrees with your feelings a Flat Earther is backwards. Science requires experiments that can predict the future, and “hot hand” is the opposite of science. In fact, like Flat Earthers, I posted a link to the science, and you were the one to reject the science.

[KGdaBom]

If “hot hands” were real, we would see that someone with a hot hand would be more likely to make their next shot. It would have predictive value. The paper I linked to showed that was not the case. For example, a player that makes five in a row is not significantly more or less likely to make shot #6 than his standard FG%.

If it doesn’t have predictive value, then it is simply an adjective. Looking back after the fact and saying someone who shot well must have done it because they had a hot hand is simply choosing your own cause for a past effect. That is not logic, and it has as much value as me saying Conley shot well because I was wearing my lucky socks, or KG was doing Santeria.

Worse, calling someone who disagrees with your feelings a Flat Earther is backwards. Science requires experiments that can predict the future, and “hot hand” is the opposite of science.

Thank you so much.

[winforlose]

If “hot hands” were real, we would have evidence that someone with a hot hand would be more likely to make their next shot. The paper I linked to showed that was not the case. For example, a player that makes five in a row is not significantly more or less likely to make shot #6 than his standard FG%.

If it doesn’t have predictive value, then it is simply an adjective. Looking back after the fact and saying someone who shot well must have done it because they had a hot hand is simply choosing your own cause for a past effect. That is not logic, and it has as much value as me saying Conley shot well because I was wearing my lucky socks, or KG was doing Santeria.

Worse, calling someone who disagrees with your feelings a Flat Earther is backwards. Science requires experiments that can predict the future, and “hot hand” is the opposite of science. In fact, like Flat Earthers, I showed you the science, and you were the one to reject the science.

Shrink, you just saw it in practice. AJ Green is not a 87.5% 3 point shooter and Mike Conley is not a 85.71% 3 point shooter. You say making #3 doesn’t impact #4 or #5, but it does. From guys getting you more shots, to your confidence in shooting those shots, to the small mechanic changes you make to your shot subconsciously to repeat what works. It happens to often and is too well recognized to simply coincidence. You might not understand every aspect of gravity, but when you jump up, you come down. We don’t have to fully understand it to observe it and know it is real. Even career professionals who spend their life in and around the game talk about it (including Finch a couple weeks ago. Jim Pete last night even called someone out for not feeding the hot hand.) I don’t know what more you need to acknowledge the phenomenon than seeing it in practice repeatedly.

[shrink]

If “hot hands” were real, we would have evidence that someone with a hot hand would be more likely to make their next shot. The paper I linked to showed that was not the case. For example, a player that makes five in a row is not significantly more or less likely to make shot #6 than his standard FG%.

If it doesn’t have predictive value, then it is simply an adjective. Looking back after the fact and saying someone who shot well must have done it because they had a hot hand is simply choosing your own cause for a past effect. That is not logic, and it has as much value as me saying Conley shot well because I was wearing my lucky socks, or KG was doing Santeria.

Worse, calling someone who disagrees with your feelings a Flat Earther is backwards. Science requires experiments that can predict the future, and “hot hand” is the opposite of science. In fact, like Flat Earthers, I showed you the science, and you were the one to reject the science.

Shrink, you just saw it in practice. AJ Green is not a 87.5% 3 point shooter and Mike Conley is not a 85.71% 3 point shooter. You say making #3 doesn’t impact #4 or #5, but it does. From guys getting you more shots, to your confidence in shooting those shots, to the small mechanic changes you make to your shot subconsciously to repeat what works. It happens to often and is too well recognized to simply coincidence. You might not understand every aspect of gravity, but when you jump up, you come down. We don’t have to fully understand it to observe it and know it is real. Even career professionals who spend their life in and around the game talk about it (including Finch a couple weeks ago. Jim Pete last night even called someone out for not feeding the hot hand.) I don’t know what more you need to acknowledge the phenomenon than seeing it in practice repeatedly.

This is all your feelings. If it was true, there would be evidence for it in the much much larger sample populations from the experiment. I’m not sure how you dismiss all the scientific evidence, when we can accurately measure whether next shots go in, in favor of feelings?

Also, people talking about feelings do not make things true. If lots of people say the world is flat (heck, the majority of people prior to 1500), that does not make the world flat.

The underlined part is wrong. I’m not saying it - I’m repeating what the scientific experiment concluded. I’m not sure how you can say, “no it does!” in the face of all that data that said it did not.

[winforlose]

If “hot hands” were real, we would have evidence that someone with a hot hand would be more likely to make their next shot. The paper I linked to showed that was not the case. For example, a player that makes five in a row is not significantly more or less likely to make shot #6 than his standard FG%.

If it doesn’t have predictive value, then it is simply an adjective. Looking back after the fact and saying someone who shot well must have done it because they had a hot hand is simply choosing your own cause for a past effect. That is not logic, and it has as much value as me saying Conley shot well because I was wearing my lucky socks, or KG was doing Santeria.

Worse, calling someone who disagrees with your feelings a Flat Earther is backwards. Science requires experiments that can predict the future, and “hot hand” is the opposite of science. In fact, like Flat Earthers, I showed you the science, and you were the one to reject the science.

Shrink, you just saw it in practice. AJ Green is not a 87.5% 3 point shooter and Mike Conley is not a 85.71% 3 point shooter. You say making #3 doesn’t impact #4 or #5, but it does. From guys getting you more shots, to your confidence in shooting those shots, to the small mechanic changes you make to your shot subconsciously to repeat what works. It happens to often and is too well recognized to simply coincidence. You might not understand every aspect of gravity, but when you jump up, you come down. We don’t have to fully understand it to observe it and know it is real. Even career professionals who spend their life in and around the game talk about it (including Finch a couple weeks ago. Jim Pete last night even called someone out for not feeding the hot hand.) I don’t know what more you need to acknowledge the phenomenon than seeing it in practice repeatedly.

This is all your feelings. If it was true, there would be evidence for it in the much much larger sample populations from the experiment. I’m not sure how you dismiss all the scientific evidence, when we can accurately measure whether next shots go in, in favor of feelings?

Also, people talking about feelings do not make things true. If lots of people say the world is flat (heck, the majority of people prior to 1500), that does not make the world flat.

How do you explain last night with both Conley and Green? Or Keegan Murray a couple months back. Or Karl hitting 8 in a row and dropping 62 with two 22 point quarters in a row? I am not talking about feelings, I am giving real examples that can be verified.

[KGdaBom]

Shrink, you just saw it in practice. AJ Green is not a 87.5% 3 point shooter and Mike Conley is not a 85.71% 3 point shooter. You say making #3 doesn’t impact #4 or #5, but it does. From guys getting you more shots, to your confidence in shooting those shots, to the small mechanic changes you make to your shot subconsciously to repeat what works. It happens to often and is too well recognized to simply coincidence. You might not understand every aspect of gravity, but when you jump up, you come down. We don’t have to fully understand it to observe it and know it is real. Even career professionals who spend their life in and around the game talk about it (including Finch a couple weeks ago. Jim Pete last night even called someone out for not feeding the hot hand.) I don’t know what more you need to acknowledge the phenomenon than seeing it in practice repeatedly.

This is all your feelings. If it was true, there would be evidence for it in the much much larger sample populations from the experiment. I’m not sure how you dismiss all the scientific evidence, when we can accurately measure whether next shots go in, in favor of feelings?

Also, people talking about feelings do not make things true. If lots of people say the world is flat (heck, the majority of people prior to 1500), that does not make the world flat.

How do you explain last night with both Conley and Green? Or Keegan Murray a couple months back. Or Karl hitting 8 in a row and dropping 62 with two 22 point quarters in a row? I am not talking about feelings, I am giving real examples that can be verified.

You're giving the exceptions to the rule. Sure you can find some games where people started shooting great and continued shooting great. I can find more instances of people starting shooting great and then stop. However, it is my understanding that Shrink has documentation that making two in a row doesn't make it more likely for you to make 3 in a row and making 3 in a row doesn't make it more likely you will make 4 in a row. I did what you have been doing by tracking what happens after somebody makes 3 in a row or misses 3 in a row. When I did that the person who was 0-3 dramatically out shot the person who was 3-3 over each players next five shots. However, that was too small a sample size so not very good scientific evidence. What Shrink has provided sounds like the scientific evidence. From here on I will leave it to Shrink.

[winforlose]

This is all your feelings. If it was true, there would be evidence for it in the much much larger sample populations from the experiment. I’m not sure how you dismiss all the scientific evidence, when we can accurately measure whether next shots go in, in favor of feelings?

Also, people talking about feelings do not make things true. If lots of people say the world is flat (heck, the majority of people prior to 1500), that does not make the world flat.

How do you explain last night with both Conley and Green? Or Keegan Murray a couple months back. Or Karl hitting 8 in a row and dropping 62 with two 22 point quarters in a row? I am not talking about feelings, I am giving real examples that can be verified.

You're giving the exceptions to the rule. Sure you can find some games where people shot great. However, it is my understanding that Shrink has documentation that making two in a row doesn't make it more likely for you to make 3 in a row and making 3 in a row doesn't make it more likely you will make 4 in a row. I did what you have been doing by tracking what happens after somebody makes 3 in a row or misses 3 in a row. When I did that the person who was 0-3 dramatically out shot the person who was 3-3 over each players next five shots. However, that was too small a sample size so not very good scientific evidence. What Shrink has provided sounds like the scientific evidence. From here on I will leave it to Shrink.

A rule is not a rule if there are exceptions. Or to use more scientific language a law cannot exist with an exception. Also, Dom came back with his own scientific follow up questioning Shrink’s studies. Lastly, talk to real basketball players they will tell you it is real. Again, we may not understand the phenomenon fully, but if it is observable, it is quantifiable.

[shrink]

How do you explain last night with both Conley and Green? Or Keegan Murray a couple months back. Or Karl hitting 8 in a row and dropping 62 with two 22 point quarters in a row? I am not talking about feelings, I am giving real examples that can be verified.

I would be shocked if that DIDN’T happen to a few players, 50 games into the season.

Imagine 7 NBA players flip coins every game, 10 times. 7 players on 30 teams for 50 games so far is a population is 10,500 sample.

The odds of flipping all heads is 1 in 1024, so roughly, it should statistically have happened around ten times by now.

We don’t look back on those people and say they must have had a “hot hand” for coin flipping. This sequence will happen randomly in large samples.

And these are 10-for-10’s, when some of the examples you label “hot hands” missed a few shots, and were likely easier to attain then 10–for-10.

[KGdaBom]

How do you explain last night with both Conley and Green? Or Keegan Murray a couple months back. Or Karl hitting 8 in a row and dropping 62 with two 22 point quarters in a row? I am not talking about feelings, I am giving real examples that can be verified.

You're giving the exceptions to the rule. Sure you can find some games where people shot great. However, it is my understanding that Shrink has documentation that making two in a row doesn't make it more likely for you to make 3 in a row and making 3 in a row doesn't make it more likely you will make 4 in a row. I did what you have been doing by tracking what happens after somebody makes 3 in a row or misses 3 in a row. When I did that the person who was 0-3 dramatically out shot the person who was 3-3 over each players next five shots. However, that was too small a sample size so not very good scientific evidence. What Shrink has provided sounds like the scientific evidence. From here on I will leave it to Shrink.

A rule is not a rule if there are exceptions. Or to use more scientific language a law cannot exist with an exception. Also, Dom came back with his own scientific follow up questioning Shrink’s studies. Lastly, talk to real basketball players they will tell you it is real. Again, we may not understand the phenomenon fully, but if it is observable, it is quantifiable.

Never mind.

[shrink]

Also, if you are assigning “hot hands” after the fact, you are running into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a player makes four in a row and misses number five, you dismiss him as not having a “hot hand.”

You can’t, at the time, take a group of players who made four in a row, and tell me which ones have the hot hand and will make #5, and which ones will miss.

This is the same fallacy that people rolling craps in Vegas have, when they bet high because they think they are on a “hot streak.”

[winforlose]

How do you explain last night with both Conley and Green? Or Keegan Murray a couple months back. Or Karl hitting 8 in a row and dropping 62 with two 22 point quarters in a row? I am not talking about feelings, I am giving real examples that can be verified.

I would be shocked if that DIDN’T happen to a few players, 50 games into the season.

Imagine 7 NBA players flip coins every game, 10 times. 7 players on 30 teams for 50 games so far is a population is 10,500 sample.

The odds of flipping all heads is 1 in 1024, so roughly, it should statistically have happened ten times by now.

We don’t look back on those people and say they must have had a “hot hand” for coin flipping. This sequence will happen randomly in large samples.

And these are 10-for-10’s, when some of the examples you label “hot hands” missed a few shots, and were likely easier to attain then 10–for-10.

We are arguing technicalities at this point. By your own acknowledgement it is bound to happen that some players will have statistically improbable nights. Some like Beasley going 0 for 9 and Green and Conley going off are all examples. Whether you label them hot hand or cold hand, they still happened. Guys still react to that happening, passing to the ones having the improbably good night, and if they are smart not passing to the ones having improbably bad nights. These swings are observable and when observed alter the behavior of those involved thus modifying the outcome.

[winforlose]

Also, if you are assigning “hot hands” after the fact, you are running into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a player makes four in a row and misses number five, you dismiss him as not having a “hot hand.”

You can’t, at the time, take a group of players who made four in a row, and tell me which ones have the hot hand and will make #5, and which ones will miss.

This is the same fallacy that people rolling craps in Vegas have, when they bet high because they think they are on a “hot streak.”

Everything in basketball is probability. The reason the mid range game fell out of favor is because the odds say paint shots are more reliable, the closer to the rim the better. Likewise 3s are not so less likely to go in than long 2s that you can ignore the extra point. Yes Mike can miss number #5, but it is more likely to go in when he hit 1-4 than when he missed 1-4. He is also more likely to have screens for him, and opportunities to shoot in rhythm. That again ignores the confidence and subconscious elements of the hot hand. But ultimately it doesn’t matter what you call it, as long as you respect it. Boston and Minnesota both respected it and both players went off.

[shrink]

How do you explain last night with both Conley and Green? Or Keegan Murray a couple months back. Or Karl hitting 8 in a row and dropping 62 with two 22 point quarters in a row? I am not talking about feelings, I am giving real examples that can be verified.

I would be shocked if that DIDN’T happen to a few players, 50 games into the season.

Imagine 7 NBA players flip coins every game, 10 times. 7 players on 30 teams for 50 games so far is a population is 10,500 sample.

The odds of flipping all heads is 1 in 1024, so roughly, it should statistically have happened ten times by now.

We don’t look back on those people and say they must have had a “hot hand” for coin flipping. This sequence will happen randomly in large samples.

And these are 10-for-10’s, when some of the examples you label “hot hands” missed a few shots, and were likely easier to attain then 10–for-10.

We are arguing technicalities at this point. By your own acknowledgement it is bound to happen that some players will have statistically improbable nights. Some like Beasley going 0 for 9 and Green and Conley going off are all examples. Whether you label them hot hand or cold hand, they still happened. Guys still react to that happening, passing to the ones having the improbably good night, and if they are smart not passing to the ones having improbably bad nights. These swings are observable and when observed alter the behavior of those involved thus modifying the outcome.

This is math, not a technicality.

Did the coin flippers have “hot hands” by your definition of the word? Did their “confidence and subconscious elements” lead to them getting 10 heads?

Is “hot hand coin flippers” a real thing to you?

[shrink]

Also, if you are assigning “hot hands” after the fact, you are running into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a player makes four in a row and misses number five, you dismiss him as not having a “hot hand.”

You can’t, at the time, take a group of players who made four in a row, and tell me which ones have the hot hand and will make #5, and which ones will miss.

This is the same fallacy that people rolling craps in Vegas have, when they bet high because they think they are on a “hot streak.”

Everything in basketball is probability. The reason the mid range game fell out of favor is because the odds say paint shots are more reliable, the closer to the rim the better. Likewise 3s are not so less likely to go in than long 2s that you can ignore the extra point. Yes Mike can miss number #5, but it is more likely to go in when he hit 1-4 than when he missed 1-4. He is also more likely to have screens for him, and opportunities to shoot in rhythm. That again ignores the confidence and subconscious elements of the hot hand. But ultimately it doesn’t matter what you call it, as long as you respect it. Boston and Minnesota both respected it and both players went off.

You missed my point. It’s labeling hot hands afterward, not during. “During” would allow you to predict, and not just ignore the people that missed their next shot as not really having a hot hand.

[Note30]

How do you explain last night with both Conley and Green? Or Keegan Murray a couple months back. Or Karl hitting 8 in a row and dropping 62 with two 22 point quarters in a row? I am not talking about feelings, I am giving real examples that can be verified.

I would be shocked if that DIDN’T happen to a few players, 50 games into the season.

Imagine 7 NBA players flip coins every game, 10 times. 7 players on 30 teams for 50 games so far is a population is 10,500 sample.

The odds of flipping all heads is 1 in 1024, so roughly, it should statistically have happened around ten times by now.

We don’t look back on those people and say they must have had a “hot hand” for coin flipping. This sequence will happen randomly in large samples.

And these are 10-for-10’s, when some of the examples you label “hot hands” missed a few shots, and were likely easier to attain then 10–for-10.

Bro what? When was the last time you picked up a ball? Sometimes your takes are so out of a book it feels like you've never even touched a basketball.

Hot hand is real, basketball isn't a machine you can plug stats into and have mathematical precision.

I will also say a hot hand is only true for as long as a player believes in it. It's confidence, nothing more nothing less. Confidence does help you make more shots in a row. It's why when players practice with closeouts in an empty gym they'll hit 80% of their shots. Actual game is a huge take on your mental.

That being said as soon as a player consciously or subconsciously drops that belief or notices his form or tries to adjust something or even gets in his head a little bit it's over.

Some players do a better job of it than others.

That being said you feed a hot hand until something changes. Defenses adjust, players start to feel uncomfortable, def happened to Karl. Instead of looking to regain the confidence like he did, he should have just tried to let the team adjust. My guess is that he was probably just trying to go for a record, realized he was, got excited and his headwind got lost.

[shrink]

How do you explain last night with both Conley and Green? Or Keegan Murray a couple months back. Or Karl hitting 8 in a row and dropping 62 with two 22 point quarters in a row? I am not talking about feelings, I am giving real examples that can be verified.

I would be shocked if that DIDN’T happen to a few players, 50 games into the season.

Imagine 7 NBA players flip coins every game, 10 times. 7 players on 30 teams for 50 games so far is a population is 10,500 sample.

The odds of flipping all heads is 1 in 1024, so roughly, it should statistically have happened around ten times by now.

We don’t look back on those people and say they must have had a “hot hand” for coin flipping. This sequence will happen randomly in large samples.

And these are 10-for-10’s, when some of the examples you label “hot hands” missed a few shots, and were likely easier to attain then 10–for-10.

Bro what? When was the last time you picked up a ball? Sometimes your takes are so out of a book it feels like you've never even touched a basketball.

Hot hand is real, basketball isn't a machine you can plug stats into and have mathematical precision.

I will also say a hot hand is only true for as long as a player believes in it. It's confidence, nothing more nothing less. Confidence does help you make more shots in a row. It's why when players practice with closeouts in an empty gym they'll hit 80% of their shots. Actual game is a huge take on your mental.

That being said as soon as a player consciously or subconsciously drops that belief or notices his form or tries to adjust something or even gets in his head a little bit it's over.

Some players do a better job of it than others.

That being said you feed a hot hand until something changes. Defenses adjust, players start to feel uncomfortable, def happened to Karl. Instead of looking to regain the confidence like he did, he should have just tried to let the team adjust. My guess is that he was probably just trying to go for a record, realized he was, got excited and his headwind got lost.

Same question to you:

Did the coin flippers have “hot hands” by your definition of the word? Did their “confidence and subconscious elements” lead to them getting 10 heads?

Is “hot hand coin flippers” a real thing to you?

[winforlose]

Also, if you are assigning “hot hands” after the fact, you are running into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a player makes four in a row and misses number five, you dismiss him as not having a “hot hand.”

You can’t, at the time, take a group of players who made four in a row, and tell me which ones have the hot hand and will make #5, and which ones will miss.

This is the same fallacy that people rolling craps in Vegas have, when they bet high because they think they are on a “hot streak.”

Everything in basketball is probability. The reason the mid range game fell out of favor is because the odds say paint shots are more reliable, the closer to the rim the better. Likewise 3s are not so less likely to go in than long 2s that you can ignore the extra point. Yes Mike can miss number #5, but it is more likely to go in when he hit 1-4 than when he missed 1-4. He is also more likely to have screens for him, and opportunities to shoot in rhythm. That again ignores the confidence and subconscious elements of the hot hand. But ultimately it doesn’t matter what you call it, as long as you respect it. Boston and Minnesota both respected it and both players went off.

You missed my point. It’s labeling hot hands afterward, not during. During would allow you to predict, and not just ignore the people that missed their next shot as not really having a hot hand.

I am going to respond to both here.

Flipping a coin and shooting a 3 point shot are not the same thing. You can point to the binary nature of make and miss and compare it to heads or tails, but we both know there is a lot more variability to the shot than the coin. For example how many people literally cannot make an NBA 3. I mean most kids cannot. Plenty of elderly people cannot. People who don’t know how to shoot cannot. Then add a wrinkle, Rudy Gobert can sink multiple 3s in shoot around. I saw it for myself in a video. Yet in a game he has never done it. You can try to reduce any binary result to random chance, but it is not always that simple.

You say that you judge the hot hand after the fact, not during. I agree to the extent that no one knew Beasley would be ice cold and Green red hot. But then Green made 2 3s and Beasley missed them. Then the 3rd make and miss, then the fourth. By the time it got to 3 people knew what was happening (some maybe sooner,) and guys were getting the ball to Green. If he stopped making them, he would have been on the bench as part of the normal rotation. But his making them kept him in the game. The coach didn’t know when the hot streak would end, but he allowed for it to continue. This is similar to Karl on the 62 point heater. You can observe the trend in real time and adjust your behavior accordingly. The hot hand is not usually observed after the fact, because if you don’t feed it nothing happens.

[casteral]

Well, back to the topic of the thread, very glad we got Monte Morris... and not sure Bones Hyland would solve any issues as we are talking about back end of the rotation spots and he wouldn't crack that threshold... and last I checked clips hadn't cut him so he's not an option anyways