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

[Foval21]

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.

It is the only varianle being measured. If this was completely true then percentages of players would stay the same throughout their careers and not fluctuate as much as they do. Defense, injury, fatigue, positioning all are variables that affect each individual shot. Therefore they affect percentage.

As soon as they ask a player in a practice if they think the ball is going in or what their confidence is they have actually become a psycological factor that could make the player overthink and mess up their form. This is a disputable theory but it could be a factor with some. This is why you have blind studies so as to not possibly tamper with the results on accident. I don't dispute the statistics. I merely conclude that there is more to it than just the mere make and miss as there are factors in a game they can not account for.

Not accepting those factors is like herby comparing heights of players and then saying they match up against each other well because they have similar heights. He isn't taking into account the other factors in what makes a good match up. Shots make or miss because of a multitude of factors and ignoring that is wrong.

Are streaks statistically real? No
Are streaks psycologically real? Yes

Neither statistics or psycology show the whole picture. If they did we could predict the outcome of every shot and game. But then playing them wouldn't be any fun anymore.

 

[HomerChampless]

Seems like Marble "feels" like its up to him to win a game. Maybe pressure from being his Dad's kid. But there are so many kids that can win a game.. pass the fking ball

DUH. Let the team run a few plays, for crying out loud. And why does he feel the need to jack it up when there are no Iowa rebounders anywhere near the basket? And why does he have to 'admire his shot' instead of transitioning to defense?

Marble is not a team player.

EDIT: IMO, he will be increasingly less of a factor in B1G play - because his talent isn't so much better than B1G competition, and because he's not a team player. (I guess I'm making a coaching decision, here).

 

[wundergrape]

It is the only varianle being measured. If this was completely true then percentages of players would stay the same throughout their careers and not fluctuate as much as they do. Defense, injury, fatigue, positioning all are variables that affect each individual shot. Therefore they affect percentage.

As soon as they ask a player in a practice if they think the ball is going in or what their confidence is they have actually become a psycological factor that could make the player overthink and mess up their form. This is a disputable theory but it could be a factor with some. This is why you have blind studies so as to not possibly tamper with the results on accident. I don't dispute the statistics. I merely conclude that there is more to it than just the mere make and miss as there are factors in a game they can not account for.

Not accepting those factors is like herby comparing heights of players and then saying they match up against each other well because they have similar heights. He isn't taking into account the other factors in what makes a good match up. Shots make or miss because of a multitude of factors and ignoring that is wrong.

Are streaks statistically real? No
Are streaks psycologically real? Yes

Neither statistics or psycology show the whole picture. If they did we could predict the outcome of every shot and game. But then playing them wouldn't be any fun anymore.

Good post. I agree with most of it.

 

[PCHawk]

It sure is easy to tell who has played sports before. The reason I don't believe the study is because I have had first hand account that the hot hand does exist. A shot is like a swing in golf. Sometimes the mechanics are off a little. For this study to be accurate, you would have to assume that someone's shot mechanics stay exactly the same day to day. That is simply not the case. On nights where your mechanics are off your shots are less likely to fall, or even be close for that matter. On nights where your shot mechanics are on, your way more likely to make your shot. Even the ones that you miss are in and out.

In golf most days you score pretty close to your average. You hit some good shots and hit some bad ones. Then you get the once every year or so where everything clicks. It's not because you're luckily stringing good shots together. It's because your swing for some reason feels so perfect that you quit thinking about it.

Golf is a little more difficult then basketball but the same thing applies with it. How do you explain a golfer who can be one of the best in the world, fall apart for a few years, then come back strong as ever? The streaks are longer in golf then they are in basketball but they happen for the same reason. Confidence and swing mechanics.

 

[wundergrape]

It sure is easy to tell who has played sports before.

What a silly thing to post. Tell me: how many games of basketball have I played? How many rounds of golf have I shot? If you had any idea what the answers to these questions were, then you'd have hidden your keyboard in the whatever dark corner of the universe it is that you're keeping your sense of reason.

 

[PCHawk]

What a silly thing to post. Tell me: how many games of basketball have I played? How many rounds of golf have I shot? If you had any idea what the answers to these questions were, then you'd have hidden your keyboard in the whatever dark corner of the universe it is that you're keeping your sense of reason.

The answer to your question is, not enough to have ever been in the zone before. You proved that by saying you don't believe it exists.

 

[ddiction]

It sure is easy to tell who has played sports before. The reason I don't believe the study is because I have had first hand account that the hot hand does exist. A shot is like a swing in golf. Sometimes the mechanics are off a little. For this study to be accurate, you would have to assume that someone's shot mechanics stay exactly the same day to day. That is simply not the case. On nights where your mechanics are off your shots are less likely to fall, or even be close for that matter. On nights where your shot mechanics are on, your way more likely to make your shot. Even the ones that you miss are in and out.

The study doesn't assume anything. It looks at the total number of makes and misses and how often they happen in streaks. The results are that they happen no more often than occur in purely random sequences. So the conclusion is that if you're a good shooter, shoot, and if you're a bad shooter, don't, regardless of how many in a row you've made or missed.

 

[sportstalent]

Dogs and bees sense fear

 

[GhostofBTT]

What a silly thing to post. Tell me: how many games of basketball have I played? How many rounds of golf have I shot? If you had any idea what the answers to these questions were, then you'd have hidden your keyboard in the whatever dark corner of the universe it is that you're keeping your sense of reason.

If I had to guess, I would say that you have not played much basketball in your life.

 

[jacknicholson]

The ZONE, you are in it or not......

 

[tm3308]

The study doesn't assume anything. It looks at the total number of makes and misses and how often they happen in streaks. The results are that they happen no more often than occur in purely random sequences. So the conclusion is that if you're a good shooter, shoot, and if you're a bad shooter, don't, regardless of how many in a row you've made or missed.

Guy randomly have everything click mechanically, too.

Again, the streaks happen randomly. But there is a reason for those streaks, at least when you're talking about something that you have more control over than a pair of dice. So while a guy might randomly have something click, he's still more likely than usual to hit his shots while that lasts.

I'm having trouble articulating this with clarity. Look at it this way. Let's assume for a moment that rain has a direct positive impact on a shooter's shot. If it rains that day, he's going to hit an unusually high number of his shots. If it doesn't, he won't. Whether or not it rains is out of the shooter's control; it's completely random. But the effects of the rain are not random.

 

[Tmoney12]

This may have the most interesting turn of any thread in the history of HN

 

[wundergrape]

If I had to guess, I would say that you have not played much basketball in your life.

You would be dead wrong. It's my game.

 

[ddiction]

Guy randomly have everything click mechanically, too.

Again, the streaks happen randomly. But there is a reason for those streaks, at least when you're talking about something that you have more control over than a pair of dice. So while a guy might randomly have something click, he's still more likely than usual to hit his shots while that lasts.

I'm having trouble articulating this with clarity. Look at it this way. Let's assume for a moment that rain has a direct positive impact on a shooter's shot. If it rains that day, he's going to hit an unusually high number of his shots. If it doesn't, he won't. Whether or not it rains is out of the shooter's control; it's completely random. But the effects of the rain are not random.

If there were a reason for streaks, there would be more of them than occur randomly, because the random ones would occur too.

 

[Foval21]

If there were a reason for streaks, there would be more of them than occur randomly, because the random ones would occur too.

This is only true if you subscribe to randomness being real. To me random means luck. Even the "randomness" of a "random" number generator has math behind it. Meaning it isn't as random as we think.

 

[ddiction]

This is only true if you subscribe to randomness being real. To me random means luck. Even the "randomness" of a "random" number generator has math behind it. Meaning it isn't as random as we think.

It is, however, more than sufficiently random for this purpose, which is to compare the number of streaks that occur in real-life basketball to the number that would randomly occur. The only failing of most computerized random number generators is that they can become predictable after hundreds of thousands of trials of the same data. Besides, you don't even need a random number generator to calculate the distribution of how often streaks would occur randomly. There are a finite number of permutations of Gatens' makes and misses, for example. But a RNG cuts out all of the complex mathematical formulas which ultimately would yield a similar result. If you happen to get the same results the 100,001st time you run the simulation that you got the first time, that doesn't invalidate the conclusion.

 

[tm3308]

If there were a reason for streaks, there would be more of them than occur randomly, because the random ones would occur too.

The reason/catalyst for those streaks (everything clicking) happens randomly. The shooter never knows when he's going to wake up one day and just be feeling it. It just happens.

There is only one kind of streak, not some with a reason and some that just happen randomly because some computer says it should.

 

[Foval21]

It is, however, more than sufficiently random for this purpose, which is to compare the number of streaks that occur in real-life basketball to the number that would randomly occur. The only failing of most computerized random number generators is that they can become predictable after hundreds of thousands of trials of the same data. Besides, you don't even need a random number generator to calculate the distribution of how often streaks would occur randomly. There are a finite number of permutations of Gatens' makes and misses, for example. But a RNG cuts out all of the complex mathematical formulas which ultimately would yield a similar result. If you happen to get the same results the 100,001st time you run the simulation that you got the first time, that doesn't invalidate the conclusion.

I never said you need a random number generator. I said there was math behind them so theye weren't really completely random. I don't believe in random or luck. Things happen for a reason. These are skills that can be gotten better or worse based off of practice. There are many factors that go into it...defense, shot mechanics, rim flex, etc. It is like saying that getting a hit in baseball or throwing a strike in bowling or any other skill is random. It isn't there are factors that can be identified that go into the outcome. Randomness or luck is what people believe in when they don't understand the factors behind something happening.

 

[tm3308]

I never said you need a random number generator. I said there was math behind them so theye weren't really completely random. I don't believe in random or luck. Things happen for a reason. These are skills that can be gotten better or worse based off of practice. There are many factors that go into it...defense, shot mechanics, rim flex, etc. It is like saying that getting a hit in baseball or throwing a strike in bowling or any other skill is random. It isn't there are factors that can be identified that go into the outcome. Randomness or luck is what people believe in when they don't understand the factors behind something happening.

Like academics who never played a sport in their lives, or if they did, they weren't any good at it.

There are certain things that happen because of dumb luck (Sash pinball pick-6, homer bouncing off Canseco's head, etc.). But that's not what we're talking about here.

 

[Foval21]

Like academics who never played a sport in their lives, or if they did, they weren't any good at it.

There are certain things that happen because of dumb luck (Sash pinball pick-6, homer bouncing off Canseco's head, etc.). But that's not what we're talking about here.

Neither of those situations were luck or random. They happened for a reason. The factors that lead to those situations were just very unlikely to align in the way they did to make them happen. That isn't luck.