White not enough touches in 2nd half, Marble to many?

PCHawk said:
Is that written by people who have never played a sport in their lives? One make or one miss doesn't bring you in and out of "the zone" so one shot doesn't always effect the odds of making the next shot. Sometimes it does tho. Gatens has about a 40% shot to make any given shot. I would say during his 12 make streak his odds of making each individual shot was closer to 70%. He!! I was never a lights out shooter and I've had some days where I pretty much knew my next shot was falling.
Click to expand...

There is no point in discussing the merits of the researchers, because you haven't read the study, and you never will. I am pretty confident that you won't even skim it.
 


PCHawk said:
There is a gambling game that a shooter could play with you that would make you go broke. Here are the rules.

1. He shoots about a thousand shots to figure out his percentage.

2. You give the shooter odds based on his percentage. If he happened to be a 50% shooter it would be ever money bets.

3. The shooter gets to decide which shots he wants to bet on. He can shoot shots all day one day and not bet on any shots. The next day he might place bets on almost all his shots. He just has to let you know before he shoots the shot.

4. The shooter gets to decide how much money to place on his shots. It would have to be a small enough amount to not make him nervous because that would change things.

In your mind this would be an even money game and whoever won did so because they were lucky. In my mind the shooter would eventually break you every time because the person shooting the ball always knows when he's in a rhythm.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, that was covered in the study wundergrape linked as well. Players were given the opportunity to predict when their next shot would be a hit or a miss, and they showed no ability to do so. Same with observers.

In fact, shootaround situations were covered in order to eliminate the factors of increased defensive pressure and (often) more risky shot selection that usually occurs after a player has hit a couple shots in a row, and what the researchers found was that players in the study were actually less likely on average to make their next shot after they made one.
 


ddiction said:
As a matter of fact, that was covered in the study wundergrape linked as well. Players were given the opportunity to predict when their next shot would be a hit or a miss, and they showed no ability to do so. Same with observers.

In fact, shootaround situations were covered in order to eliminate the factors of increased defensive pressure and (often) more riskyot selection that usually occurs after a player has hit a couple shots in a row, and what the researchers found was that players in the study were actually less likely on average to make their next shot after they made one.
Click to expand...


Your last sentence counterdicts what you have been saying the whole time.
 








PCHawk said:
You said the previous shot has no baring on your,next one.
Click to expand...

And I was talking about game situations when I said that. I brought up the shootaround situation situation to disprove what you said about how I'd lose the bet against the player in the gym. And even if you still think I was wrong when I said the previous shot had no bearing on the next one, it would make you much more wrong because you thought it would be higher.
 


PCHawk said:
I agree with this. Just don't agree with him on this subject. And there have been studies done "proving" both sides of every arguement in the history of arguements.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you, there aren't any that prove your side in this one.
 


I guess ill try one more time. Most of the time your previous shot means nothing. Most nights you go out and you feel pretty much the same. You will make some and you will miss some and they are all completely random. But there is the occasional night where your percentages change drastically for the better or the worse.

Some nights you are just more focused for whatever reason. The rim looks bigger. Your shot feels so fluid that you don't even think about it while you're shooting. You can see the shot before you shoot it.

Other night's are just the opposite. You get in your own head. Your shot feels funny. You can't release the ball properly to get the right rotation and trajectory. You have to get the ball close to give it a chance to go in and when that's a struggle your odds of making it go down.

These things don't just happen in basketball. They happen in all sports. They happen in video games. They happen in pretty much everything that requires coordination. And when they do happen, they prove that streaks do indeed exist.
 




PCHawk said:
I guess ill try one more time. Most of the time your previous shot means nothing. Most nights you go out and you feel pretty much the same. You will make some and you will miss some and they are all completely random. But there is the occasional night where your percentages change drastically for the better or the worse.

Some nights you are just more focused for whatever reason. The rim looks bigger. Your shot feels so fluid that you don't even think about it while you're shooting. You can see the shot before you shoot it.

Other night's are just the opposite. You get in your own head. Your shot feels funny. You can't release the ball properly to get the right rotation and trajectory. You have to get the ball close to give it a chance to go in and when that's a struggle your odds of making it go down.

These things don't just happen in basketball. They happen in all sports. They happen in video games. They happen in pretty much everything that requires coordination. And when they do happen, they prove that streaks do indeed exist.
Click to expand...

You still don't understand the study. What you just said proves that you didn't read it.
 




ddiction said:
You still don't understand the study. What you just said proves that you didn't read it.
Click to expand...

You also miss the real point. Obviously, a made shot does not impact the next one. But when a guy has a hot hand, there's usually something else going on that's making it easier to hit shots (a variable). That variable has an impact on future shots.

That variable is also visible in your computer analysis. It's not like the "on" switch is permanently flipped on. Sometimes it lasts for a week or two, sometimes just for a game. That variable can pretty easily account for the random streaks you found in your analysis.

The streak itself is just the symptom of an underlying condition: the variable, whatever it may be.
 




tm3308 said:
You also miss the real point. Obviously, a made shot does not impact the next one. But when a guy has a hot hand, there's usually something else going on that's making it easier to hit shots (a variable). That variable has an impact on future shots.

That variable is also visible in your computer analysis. It's not like the "on" switch is permanently flipped on. Sometimes it lasts for a week or two, sometimes just for a game. That variable can pretty easily account for the random streaks you found in your analysis.

The streak itself is just the symptom of an underlying condition: the variable, whatever it may be.
Click to expand...

If anything typically happened that made it easier to hit shots consecutively, then there would be more streaks in real life than in a random assortment of the same number of makes and misses, wouldn't there? So why isn't that the case?
 


imported_Tmoney12 said:
So.. did White get enough touches and Marble to many?
Click to expand...

Yes, but can mathematics tell us...please initiate study immediately. Too many days in between games. :p

Statistically speaking if we take the inverse tangent of the hypotenuse by bisecting the 3-pt arc divided by the cubic feet of the lane times pi, we got something.
 


ddiction said:
If anything typically happened that made it easier to hit shots consecutively, then there would be more streaks in real life than in a random assortment of the same number of makes and misses, wouldn't there? So why isn't that the case?
Click to expand...

Though the two things come out with similar numbers you still can't definitively disprove streaks. The mathematics can only look at certain variables. It can't account for all variables within a game. Though there seems to be a relationship you can't prove or disprove it. There is a correlation but any mathematician would know that correlation only means there could be a relationship. It doesn't definitively prove a relationship. This is something that truly can't be proven or disproven.
 


PCHawk said:
I skimmed it. I disagree with it.
Click to expand...


How can you disagree with it? It is a peer-reviewed, scientific study based on replicable trials and statistical fact. "The Hot Hand Fallacy" (yes, it even has a name) is so widely accepted as fact that it is taught around the world in introductory statistics classes. You can disagree all you want - the work has already been done for you, though.
 




Foval21 said:
Though the two things come out with similar numbers you still can't definitively disprove streaks. The mathematics can only look at certain variables. It can't account for all variables within a game. Though there seems to be a relationship you can't prove or disprove it. There is a correlation but any mathematician would know that correlation only means there could be a relationship. It doesn't definitively prove a relationship. This is something that truly can't be proven or disproven.
Click to expand...


Again, this is wrong. The only variable that matters is whether or not the next shot goes in. Since these trials have been replicated enough times in a multitude of situations, any variable difference in conditions has long been negated (it was in the first study alone, but that's neither here nor there). As far as the science of statistics is concerned, Hot Hand Fallacy is a fact.

Now, as I've mentioned previously, streaks are very real in the psychological sense - they do play a part in the confidence and performance of a team: they sharpen people's senses and increase trust among constituent parts. However, making a certain number of shots has nothing to do with what will happen with the next shot.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page






Top