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

[tm3308]

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.

That's luck to a T. The stars aligned in such a way that it is wildly unlikely to ever happen again. That's the definition of luck. Unless you're suggesting that Sash and whoever hit that homerun were just so skilled they made those things happen.

 

[wundergrape]

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.

Just throwing this out there: being an academic and being an athelete are not mutually exclusive. I was both; and I am able to recognize both the statistical invalidity of streaks, as well as the enormous affect that consecutive makes can have on one's psyche and confidence. Being open to ideas that run contrary to your own experience doesn't make you inexperienced, it makes you open minded and critical.

 

[PCHawk]

Just throwing this out there: being an academic and being an athelete are not mutually exclusive. I was both; and I am able to recognize both the statistical invalidity of streaks, as well as the enormous affect that consecutive makes can have on one's psyche and confidence. Being open to ideas that run contrary to your own experience doesn't make you inexperienced, it makes you open minded and critical.

You can't believe in both. If one is true it means the other can't be.

 

[ddiction]

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.

Whether they are luck or not is really a semantics question. For the purposes of this discussion, when I said Gatens was both skilled and lucky to have hit 12 in a row, it means that the factors that were outside of his control happened to work in his favor. The point is that whether theoretically predictable or not, the player doing the shooting isn't able to predict them well enough to know whether the next shot will go in (at least, not before the shot has already left his hand, when it's too late to do something different with the ball).

 

[tm3308]

Whether they are luck or not is really a semantics question. For the purposes of this discussion, when I said Gatens was both skilled and lucky to have hit 12 in a row, it means that the factors that were outside of his control happened to work in his favor. The point is that whether theoretically predictable or not, the player doing the shooting isn't able to predict them well enough to know whether the next shot will go in (at least, not before the shot has already left his hand, when it's too late to do something different with the ball).

It's not about being able to predict when a shot will go in. Gatens missed 6 threes over those two games, but that doesn't mean he didn't have a hot hand. He was a 40% 3-point shooter who had everything clicking for a few games. As long as that was the case, his odds of hitting shots were much higher than usual.

 

[tm3308]

Whether they are luck or not is really a semantics question. For the purposes of this discussion, when I said Gatens was both skilled and lucky to have hit 12 in a row, it means that the factors that were outside of his control happened to work in his favor. The point is that whether theoretically predictable or not, the player doing the shooting isn't able to predict them well enough to know whether the next shot will go in (at least, not before the shot has already left his hand, when it's too late to do something different with the ball).

It's not about being able to predict when a shot will go in. Gatens missed 6 threes over those two games, but that doesn't mean he didn't have a hot hand. He was a 40% 3-point shooter who had everything clicking for a few games. As long as that was the case, his odds of hitting shots were much higher than usual.

 

[ddiction]

It's not about being able to predict when a shot will go in. Gatens missed 6 threes over those two games, but that doesn't mean he didn't have a hot hand. He was a 40% 3-point shooter who had everything clicking for a few games. As long as that was the case, his odds of hitting shots were much higher than usual.

Whether he hit shots at a higher rate than usual does not mean that he had better odds of making each shot than usual.

 

[tm3308]

Whether he hit shots at a higher rate than usual does not mean that he had better odds of making each shot than usual.

Eating burritos gives me gas. The odds are higher that I will have gas if I keep eating burritos.

How is this logic so difficult for you to follow?

Honestly, your argument is overly simplistic, like the morons who pick on weathermen for saying there's a 40% chance of rain. "No, there's a 50% chance. It's either going to rain, or it's not."

 

[ddiction]

Eating burritos gives me gas. The odds are higher that I will have gas if I keep eating burritos.

How is this logic so difficult for you to follow?

Honestly, your argument is overly simplistic, like the morons who pick on weathermen for saying there's a 40% chance of rain. "No, there's a 50% chance. It's either going to rain, or it's not."

That logic works for burritos. It does not work for basketball shots. And as I have mentioned before, I was surprised by the data too, but the data doesn't lie. Streaks happen as often in random simulations of basketball as they do in actual basketball, ergo the chance of each shot going in has no bearing on the results of the previous shot.

 

[wundergrape]

You can't believe in both. If one is true it means the other can't be.

This is true, but it doesn't really speak to my point. My point is this: I've played basketball my entire life. I can tell you that when the hot courts (the first two on the right) at the Field House had a wait, that some times the "plastic courts" under the track are running. I can tell you that you can turn the flood lights on at the court behind Burge by holding down the second button for 30 seconds at 2 in the morning. I can tell you that the best unknown game in Iowa City is the noon "lawyers and brokers" game at the Robert A. Lee Rec Center. I can tell you that the best non-Burge outdoor court dowtown is the one at Oak Grove Park, but that they don't clean the leaves off enough and sometimes it gets muddy. I can tell you that the court at College Green park slopes toward the stairs, so the easier outside shot is from the left wing.

Don't tell me I don't know basketball, I've probably played more of it than 95% of the people on this forum. I'm extremely familiar with what it feels like to be on fire: I've gone around the world in a turn, and I've put up 15 straight in a game of 24.

But I also know that the human mind is fallible, and that science is a far better information collator than my brain: just enter any courtroom and see what's more reliable, forensic or testimonial evidence. The bottom line is this: you can either go by what your senses tell you, even if science tells you that you're wrong, or you can embrace your fallibility and trust hard evidence. You obviously choose the former, and I choose the latter. But, then again, the Catholic Church took your route, and Copernicus took mine. I think we all know how that shook out.

 

[tm3308]

That logic works for burritos. It does not work for basketball shots.

Alright.

I don't care what factor(s) you believe combined to allow Gatens to hit the way he did during that stretch. It doesn't matter what it was. But what you're saying is that even if those factors continue to work in Gatens' favor, he doesn't have higher odds of hitting his shots than when they aren't working in his favor? If that's the case, then those factors have no impact at all.

 

[ddiction]

Alright.

I don't care what factor(s) you believe combined to allow Gatens to hit the way he did during that stretch. It doesn't matter what it was. But what you're saying is that even if those factors continue to work in Gatens' favor, he doesn't have higher odds of hitting his shots than when they aren't working in his favor? If that's the case, then those factors have no impact at all.

Sure, outside factors have a huge factor in whether a shot goes in. Whether you're open or not, where you're shooting from, whether the shot clock is about to expire and you have to rush your shot, etc. Even internal factors are beyond the player's control, such as how well your body responds at that moment to the instructions it receives from your brain. Those factors just are very rarely consistent from one shot to the next. Some are, like whether you're playing a bad team or whether you got a good night of sleep. But they clearly don't affect a streak in a measurable degree, or there simply would be more streaks in real life than are present in randomly sorted lists of makes and misses.

 

[PCHawk]

This is true, but it doesn't really speak to my point. My point is this: I've played basketball my entire life. I can tell you that when the hot courts (the first two on the right) at the Field House had a wait, that some times the "plastic courts" under the track are running. I can tell you that you can turn the flood lights on at the court behind Burge by holding down the second button for 30 seconds at 2 in the morning. I can tell you that the best unknown game in Iowa City is the noon "lawyers and brokers" game at the Robert A. Lee Rec Center. I can tell you that the best non-Burge outdoor court dowtown is the one at Oak Grove Park, but that they don't clean the leaves off enough and sometimes it gets muddy. I can tell you that the court at College Green park slopes toward the stairs, so the easier outside shot is from the left wing.
Don't tell me I don't know basketball, I've probably played more of it than 95% of the people on this forum. I'm extremely familiar with what it feels like to be on fire: I've gone around the world in a turn, and I've put up 15 straight in a game of 24.

But I also know that the human mind is fallible, and that science is a far better information collator than my brain: just enter any courtroom and see what's more reliable, forensic or testimonial evidence. The bottom line is this: you can either go by what your senses tell you, even if science tells you that you're wrong, or you can embrace your fallibility and trust hard evidence. You obviously choose the former, and I choose the latter. But, then again, the Catholic Church took your route, and Copernicus took mine. I think we all know how that shook out.

If you know what its like to be on fire then you know what its like to be ice cold too. You really think your odds of making the next shot is EXACTLY the same in those two situations?

 

[tm3308]

Sure, outside factors have a huge factor in whether a shot goes in. Whether you're open or not, where you're shooting from, whether the shot clock is about to expire and you have to rush your shot, etc. Even internal factors are beyond the player's control, such as how well your body responds at that moment to the instructions it receives from your brain. Those factors just are very rarely consistent from one shot to the next. Some are, like whether you're playing a bad team or whether you got a good night of sleep. But they clearly don't affect a streak in a measurable degree, or there simply would be more streaks in real life than are present in randomly sorted lists of makes and misses.

It's not about unbroken streaks. People get a hot hand all the time, but how many perfect FGM/FGA marks do you see? The odds are higher when those factors line up, whatever the factors may be. If your chances are, say, 60-40 (taking into account the factors in your favor), missing the shot doesn't mean your odds weren't better than usual.

 

[PCHawk]

Sure, outside factors have a huge factor in whether a shot goes in. Whether you're open or not, where you're shooting from, whether the shot clock is about to expire and you have to rush your shot, etc. Even internal factors are beyond the player's control, such as how well your body responds at that moment to the instructions it receives from your brain. Those factors just are very rarely consistent from one shot to the next. Some are, like whether you're playing a bad team or whether you got a good night of sleep. But they clearly don't affect a streak in a measurable degree, or there simply would be more streaks in real life than are present in randomly sorted lists of makes and misses.

You keep saying there would be more streaks then a random simulator. Why does that have to be true? Can't it just be that the reasons for the streaks are different? The reason for the streaks in a simulator is random luck. The reason for streaks in real life is the shooters physical and mental make-up at that particular time.

If 90% of the time the odds of making your next shot is random, 5% of the time your odds are higher because you have the hot hand, and 5% of the time your odds are worse because you are ice cold, would that really show up on a random simulator? I don't think it would. But it would mean that 10% of the time your odds are noticeably different then normal.

 

[PCHawk]

It's not about unbroken streaks. People get a hot hand all the time, but how many perfect FGM/FGA marks do you see? The odds are higher when those factors line up, whatever the factors may be. If your chances are, say, 60-40 (taking into account the factors in your favor), missing the shot doesn't mean your odds weren't better than usual.

This. Sometimes your odds are worse to make it because you're ice cold but maybe you get lucky and bank it in. When you're odds are better because you're hot it doesn't mean its guaranteed to go in. A 3 is difficult to make. When you're on fire you are giving them all chances to fall, it doesn't mean they will. All it takes is one rattle out to end the streak.

 

[wundergrape]

If you know what its like to be on fire then you know what its like to be ice cold too. You really think your odds of making the next shot is EXACTLY the same in those two situations?

Not in the moment, of course. I've consistently mentioned the psychological effect of consecutive makes/misses. It's real, and it has a large effect on the behavior of players. But unquestionable research has showed me that my emotional interpretation regarding my chances of making the next shot is wrong. I'm o.k. with that. It doesn't mean that I won't make the next six or miss the next ten; it just tells me that my chances of making the next shot are about 40%-50%. Magic doesn't come along and change those odds.

 

[PCHawk]

Not in the moment, of course. I've consistently mentioned the psychological effect of consecutive makes/misses. It's real, and it has a large effect on the behavior of players. But unquestionable research has showed me that my emotional interpretation regarding my chances of making the next shot is wrong. I'm o.k. with that. It doesn't mean that I won't make the next six or miss the next ten; it just tells me that my chances of making the next shot are about 40%-50%. Magic doesn't come along and change those odds.

That means when your shot feels so funny that you have trouble even hitting the rim your odds of making the next shot are exactly the same as when your shot feels so good that you feel like you can make them all.

Haven't you ever been so dialled in that you have the ability to correct your shot halfway through it? For instance right before you release the ball you realize its going to be short so you flick your wrist just a little more to compensate. Those days were rare for me but when I had them my percentages to make my next shot were way higher then normal. They were also way way higher then the days where my shot was so off that I was thinking more about my form then I was concentrating on the rim.

 

[wundergrape]

That means when your shot feels so funny that you have trouble even hitting the rim your odds of making the next shot are exactly the same as when your shot feels so good that you feel like you can make them all.

Haven't you ever been so dialled in that you have the ability to correct your shot halfway through it? For instance right before you release the ball you realize its going to be short so you flick your wrist just a little more to compensate. Those days were rare for me but when I had them my percentages to make my next shot were way higher then normal. They were also way way higher then the days where my shot was so off that I was thinking more about my form then I was concentrating on the rim.

First of all, statistics is a tricky discipline, let's be clear. In order to get accurate probabilities you need an enormous sample. For example, public opinion polls are statistically valid: they predict who will be president. But, can they predict who I'm going to vote for? Or my neighbor? No, they can't. So, you are right, there are things that one can do to increase the chances of a made shot, and certainly a miss. That's why we practice: to lock in foot-to-leg-to-hip-to-shoulder rhythm, to standardize release points...we're attempting to skew the odds in our favor as much as possible in order to increase our overall odds of being able to make shots. However, taken over large samples, statistics tells us that the odds of consecutive makes are the same. That's just a fact.

But, the flaw of statistics as a discipline is this: they're predictive. The odds of me making the shot that I just made are 100%, the odds of me having missed it are 0%...Hot Hand Fallacy be damned. So, if you're asking what the odds are that I make 1 shot...that's impossible to calculate without a knowledge of quantum physics (and metaphysics, most likely) that humanity has yet to achieve. But, I can say this with relative certainty: If you watch me hit three jumpers in a row, and then calculate whether I make the next one, and we do this 200 times, the odds will even out to be exactly the same as any other shot. Is what it is.

 

[PCHawk]

First of all, statistics is a tricky discipline, let's be clear. In order to get accurate probabilities you need an enormous sample. For example, public opinion polls are statistically valid: they predict who will be president. But, can they predict who I'm going to vote for? Or my neighbor? No, they can't. So, you are right, there are things that one can do to increase the chances of a made shot, and certainly a miss. That's why we practice: to lock in foot-to-leg-to-hip-to-shoulder rhythm, to standardize release points...we're attempting to skew the odds in our favor as much as possible in order to increase our overall odds of being able to make shots. However, taken over large samples, statistics tells us that the odds of consecutive makes are the same. That's just a fact.

But, the flaw of statistics as a discipline is this: they're predictive. The odds of me making the shot that I just made are 100%, the odds of me having missed it are 0%...Hot Hand Fallacy be damned. So, if you're asking what the odds are that I make 1 shot...that's impossible to calculate without a knowledge of quantum physics (and metaphysics, most likely) that humanity has yet to achieve. But, I can say this with relative certainty: If you watch me hit three jumpers in a row, and then calculate whether I make the next one, and we do this 200 times, the odds will even out to be exactly the same as any other shot. Is what it is.

I kind of agree with your last sentence. I think the reason they are so close to the same after 3 makes is because a lot of times you are not even in the zone after 3 makes. Even the times you are in the zone after 3 makes you might rattle out your next shot. When you factor in those 2 things it would make the statistics pretty close. I don't think for a second that your odds change for your next shot every time you make one. But I do know for a fact that the odds of making your next shot on nights you're zoned in are WAY higher then your odds of making a shot on nights you are struggling with your shot.

Marble against Indiana is a good example. I don't think his odds of missing his next shot were worse then normal on that particular night because he was shooting a low percentage. He was shooting shots from all over the floor and a lot of them were barely missing. I never really got the feeling that night that he was struggling with his shot. McCabe on the other hand did have a worse chance to hit his next shot then normal. Not because of his bad percentage that night but because how ugly his shot looked and how badly he was missing them.