San Antonio Spurs @ Utah Jazz - Mon. Feb 12th 7pm MST

[♪alt13]

Okay.

It's a matter of degree isn't it? A player shooting really well would be said to have a hot hand. A player shooting poorly would be said to be cold. How can you not think that players get hot? Look if the data is telling you something silly then you probably are missing something.

 

[Miggs]

Yeah, Brooklyn baby. I am a real live doctor now and stuff

A gyno, I assume.

 

[Siro]

It's a matter of degree isn't it? A player shooting really well would be said to have a hot hand. A player shooting poorly would be said to be cold. How can you not think that players get hot? Look if the data is telling you something silly then you probably are missing something.

You're talking about, I don't know, what people name things? I'm talking about whether players getting hot and cold are a matter of random distribution around their averages. There are several pages of discussion in two threads, and you think I'm talking about whether players ever actually hit a bunch of shots in a row?

 

[mellow]

"[Review] shows Ingles initiates contact to Ginobili's back, extending his arms and dislodging him as he retrieves the loose ball."

That description only begins to describe what Joe did to Manu. Joe gonna have to be careful, he's made some enemies.

 

[spycam1]

Is there evidence of that, though? Aside from your feelings?

Never thought I'd see the day when even religious people question the connection between feelings and objective reality.

 

[♪alt13]

You're talking about, I don't know, what people name things? I'm talking about whether players getting hot and cold are a matter of random distribution around their averages. There are several pages of discussion in two threads, and you think I'm talking about whether players ever actually hit a bunch of shots in a row?

Their averages are a function of their shooting their shooting is not a function of their averages. The way you talk about it it's almost like you think that the data is causal.

 

[Gameface]

Their averages are a function of their shooting their shooting is not a function of their averages. The way you talk about it it's almost like you think that the data is causal.

I don't want to jump into a statistical conversation where I'm over my head and outclassed, but...

The averages, being a function of their historic shooting performance are a strong indicator if their future shooting accuracy, are they not?

 

[Siro]

Their averages are a function of their shooting their shooting is not a function of their averages. The way you talk about it it's almost like you think that the data is causal.

What's that got to do with it? The popular perception is that players who "get hot" should keep shooting because their shots will go in at a higher than average rate. That's a statistical argument that can be tested.

 

[♪alt13]

I don't want to jump into a statistical conversation where I'm over my head and outclassed, but...

The averages, being a function of their historic shooting performance are a strong indicator if their future shooting accuracy, are they not?

Apparently on a good night a player isn't hot he's just randomly straying from his average. On a poor night he's not cold he's just randomly straying from his average. The most important thing here is his average.

What's that got to do with it? The popular perception is that players who "get hot" should keep shooting because their shots will go in at a higher than average rate. That's a statistical argument that can be tested.

1) a player randomly straying from their average? Their average is not causal. It's a weird thing to say.

2) sometimes players make a whole bunch more shots in a night than their average. There are reasons for that but it isn't because last week they shot poorly.

3)If they are open and it's a good shot they sure will be more likely to make it. I am absolutely certain that when you correct for the type of shot and the defense( the NBA only recently began tracking this kind of data) it is true that a shooter shooting well is more likely to make a shot then a shooter shooting poorly. I'm not aware of how you would test for it right now because you have insufficient data.

You can't treat the data that you have in front of you as if it were from a controlled experiment. It's not.

 

[Siro]

Apparently on a good night a player isn't hot he's just randomly straying from his average. On a poor night he's not cold he's just randomly straying from his average. The most important thing here is his average.


1) a player randomly straying from their average? Their average is not causal. It's a weird thing to say.

2) sometimes players make a whole bunch more shots in a night than their average. There are reasons for that but it isn't because last week they shot poorly.

3)If they are open and it's a good shot they sure will be more likely to make it. I am absolutely certain that when you correct for the type of shot and the defense( the NBA only recently began tracking this kind of data) it is true that a shooter shooting well is more likely to make a shot then a shooter shooting poorly. I'm not aware of how you would test for it right now because you have insufficient data.

You can't treat the data that you have in front of you as if it were from a controlled experiment. It's not.

Given a large enough sample, the circumstances cancel out. If meaningful data can only come from controlled experiments, then we should basically disregard all social science. What you're saying is weird. What I'm saying is perfectly normal. It is a phenomenon with available data. Plenty have tried to test it in a variety of ways. It's all been mentioned.

 

[colton]

sometimes players make a whole bunch more shots in a night than their average. There are reasons for that but it isn't because last week they shot poorly.

The question is whether or not the reasons are adequately explained by simple statistical fluctuations of the sort that are always present (like flipping a coin, every so often you'll get a run of 5 heads, etc.). Or is there some other underlying thing going on? The null hypothesis is that simple statistics explains the fluctuations. The "hot hand fallacy" (which may or may not be a complete fallacy, see the Wikipedia article, but has been long considered such) is that there is something else going on. But to disprove the null hypothesis you need empirical evidence. You can't just say "it's so because it's so". At least not if you want to have modern mathematicians and scientists take you seriously.

 

[♪alt13]

Given a large enough sample, the circumstances cancel out. If meaningful data can only come from controlled experiments, then we should basically disregard all social science. What you're saying is weird. What I'm saying is perfectly normal. It is a phenomenon with available data. Plenty have tried to test it in a variety of ways. It's all been mentioned.

You are 100% wrong. A player making shots is causal. The circumstances are not random. The circumstances are not noise in the data. They do not cancel out.

 

[Siro]

You are 100% wrong. A player making shots is causal. The circumstances are not random. The circumstances are not noise in the data. They do not cancel out.

That was a bit tongue in cheek. Of course human circumstances are all unique and cannot cancel out. You're ignoring the whole argument to make a point about epistemology. It is not a good point.

 

[♪alt13]

The question is whether or not the reasons are adequately explained by simple statistical fluctuations of the sort that are always present (like flipping a coin, every so often you'll get a run of 5 heads, etc.). Or is there some other underlying thing going on? The null hypothesis is that simple statistics explains the fluctuations. The "hot hand fallacy" (which may or may not be a complete fallacy, see the Wikipedia article, but has been long considered such) is that there is something else going on. But to disprove the null hypothesis you need empirical evidence. You can't just say "it's so because it's so". At least not if you want to have modern mathematicians and scientists take you seriously.

1) shooting is not a coin flip. I know, that's why I don't play in the NBA.(and never will. it won't happen by chance)

2)If I had some way of making it more likely that when you flip the coin it went Tails instead of heads you would call anybody ignoring my influence silly. Any data collected that didn't collect my influence would be crazy flawed. Further if you were to stand in a spot that was more likely to flip heads or tails and we didn't collect where you were just whether it was heads or tails... ditto.

We all know what's going on because it's a duh. When the data is collected the duh will be proven right.

 

[Miggs]

Yeah, Brooklyn baby. I am a real live doctor now and stuff

A gyno, I assume.

 

[Gameface]

A gyno, I assume.

I was going to guess proctologist.

 

[RandyForRubio]

It’s evidence for me, not ya’ll.

Fish...that's not how evidence works.

 

[fishonjazz]

Fish...that's not how evidence works.

It’s how joking around works.
Hope no one has taken me seriously in this discussion. It’s way over my head.

I do know, that speaking for myself, when I’m more confident I shoot better than when I’m nervous and hesitant about my shot.

Confidence has positive effects on other things in my life as well.

 

[Gameface]

It’s how joking around works.
Hope no one has taken me seriously in this discussion. It’s way over my head.

I do know, that speaking for myself, when I’m more confident I shoot better than when I’m nervous and hesitant about my shot.

Confidence has positive effects on other things in my life as well.

Right?

 

[fishonjazz]

Right?

Yep. When I was single and feeling confident and in a good mood at the bar I did better with the ladies.
When I’m on the basketball court and feeling good and confident I play better.
When I’m fishing and I want to place my lure in a specific part of the river but it’s in a risky location, I cast better if I have been hitting on my previous casts and I have confidence that I will hit the spot I want. If I’m hitting tree branches, bushes, etc then it seems to snowball and I can’t hit my spots for ****. (Just like when I’m shooting poorly)