General game-day thoughts/comments

[Modifly]

I wouldn't. I'm talking about this season and this season only. It's only been 13 games into the season but it showed a lot of things. So far, Adelman hasn't adapt his game plans and his coaching methods to comply with the players they have and the situation they're facing.

I really don't understand why he loves to sub out players that are hot and bring in players that are not. It's too obvious to see if you watch the game.

[benji]

Because he sets and enforces a rotation.

Maybe he also knows that the "hot hand" as a tangible thing (and not an emotion) is a myth.

[Modifly]

Well, it's his rotation that's causing problems right now.

[Martti.]

Spoelstra, get fired already.

[koberulz]

Maybe he also knows that the "hot hand" as a tangible thing (and not an emotion) is a myth.

When was that proved? I've seen the studies that prove that hitting a shot makes your next shot more likely to miss, but I don't believe anyone's actually looked at players who have hit a handful of consecutive shots.

Anecdotal and all, but having had the hot hand on one occasion, it doesn't seem a myth to me. There's a difference between more shots going in than usual despite nothing else being any different (an expected statistical occurrence) and going through a game with noticeably better shooting technique, more ability to recognise flaws in said technique when they do occur, and so on.

I think the flaw in the studies that have been done on this is treating players like machines, rather than people. Machines would obviously produce the same percentage, every time, and any 'hot hand' effect would be merely a rare but expected result, as would a sequence of misses. When you've got a human determining success, though, you can't as easily chalk it up that way.

[shadowgrin]

Spoelstra, get fired already.

Riley is too smart for that. He knows the Heat roster isn't yet that complete for his liking.
Just look at the last time he coached the Heat, all he had to do then when he stepped in was to fix the heads and egos of his players.

[benji]

I've seen the studies that prove that hitting a shot makes your next shot more likely to miss

Then you read some really shitty "studies" because that would be impossible to prove and such a thing would have no logical line of causation.

but I don't believe anyone's actually looked at players who have hit a handful of consecutive shots.

That's exactly what the original flawed study did.

Anecdotal and all, but having had the hot hand on one occasion, it doesn't seem a myth to me.

Right, like I said, it's entirely emotional. You "feel" like you can't miss but there is no rational basis for thinking so, it's just pumped up self-esteem.

There's a difference between more shots going in than usual despite nothing else being any different (an expected statistical occurrence) and going through a game with noticeably better shooting technique, more ability to recognise flaws in said technique when they do occur, and so on.

But that is not a "hot hand" that's a demonstrable alteration of technique for the course of an entire game. The "hot hand" is a magical feeling that elevates your game for a short period. Like God. Which is why it can overwhelm the literally countless number of variables involved.

I think the flaw in the studies that have been done on this is treating players like machines, rather than people. Machines would obviously produce the same percentage, every time, and any 'hot hand' effect would be merely a rare but expected result, as would a sequence of misses. When you've got a human determining success, though, you can't as easily chalk it up that way.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.

A machine designed to output the same percentage all the time would not have random chance involved so it could not produce a "hot hand" ever, it would simply output at the same 100% again and again until it broke.

Not a single person believes that any player shoots the same percentage on every shot. No one has ever believed this and no one ever will because it's so obvious how illogical and stupid it is.

[Houndy]

The Heat: Two Superstars and Scrubs (I'm looking at you Chris Bosh)

[Cleveland wins]

Knew before season started heat wouldn't be one of top 3 teams in east, Lbj won't get a ring this year or for a while until they add interior defense, and a point gaurd who can pass.

What happend to denver? I know this was a while ago, but at one point in the game it was 113 indiana and 74 denver? I know its a long road trip but teams travel all the time, where's denver's defense?

[Axel The Great]

Pacers went 20/21 in the third quarter. Didn't watch that game, so I don't know much about what happened to their defense, if they even have any. Refer to benji's explanation of "hot hand" too.

[Houndy]

Someone needs to get Chris Bust hungrier. Did a quick sim of playoffs if Bron stayed in Cleveland. Lost in 2nd round to Celtics in 6, leading scorer in all but one of the games, and the Heat lost in the ECF.

[koberulz]

I've seen the studies that prove that hitting a shot makes your next shot more likely to miss

Then you read some really shitty "studies" because that would be impossible to prove and such a thing would have no logical line of causation.

Well yeah.

That's exactly what the original flawed study did.

Link?

Right, like I said, it's entirely emotional. You "feel" like you can't miss but there is no rational basis for thinking so, it's just pumped up self-esteem.

Well...no, as explained below. The 'hot hand', to me, is the latter of the two situations I mentioned, not the former.

But that is not a "hot hand" that's a demonstrable alteration of technique for the course of an entire game.

If there were conscious effort to alter technique, that would be true. I hadn't intentionally changed anything, I just, for no discernible reason, had a better feel for it than usual. As a result, a significantly higher percentage of my shots fell than usual, and I was immediately aware that the one miss I did have would miss the second I let it go, and by the exact amount, and in which direction, and why, and had the ability after the offensive rebound to curl from the corner to the top, catch the ball, and shoot while making the correct adjustment, thus hitting the shot. I've never been able to do that since.

The "hot hand" is a magical feeling that elevates your game for a short period.

That does somewhat describe what I was experiencing. It just had a clear physical result other than my accuracy.

Interestingly, much like Ray Allen last year, I was unstoppable from three, but my mid-range jumpshot was no better than usual.

A machine designed to output the same percentage all the time would not have random chance involved so it could not produce a "hot hand" ever, it would simply output at the same 100% again and again until it broke.

If a machine were designed to have a 64.7% chance of hitting every single shot it took, surely it would hit a streak occasionally if you ran it long enough?

Not a single person believes that any player shoots the same percentage on every shot. No one has ever believed this and no one ever will because it's so obvious how illogical and stupid it is.

Everything I've seen on B-R that analyses the hot hand has seemed to operate with that kind of idea in mind, along with only looking at the situation I initially mentioned. Can't say for sure that this is definitely what Neil thinks, but it certainly seems to be.

[Rip32]

So... do you have a hot hand every time or only some of the times when you beat LeBron in 1-on-1?

[deihatein]

Dirk scoring 42, 15 going into the 4th.

[benji]

How would you design a machine with a 65% RANDOM chance of making a shot on every shot? And even if you could what would be the relevance?

Neil thinks a lot of stupid things but I'd have to see a link. Even so he is but one man, and man believes a lot of stupid things.

Anyway. What's your argument and explanation for the so-called existence of it? Other than sheer faith? The only explanation I can see is a regression fallacy combined with a small sample size. (Plus the emotional high breaking down logical reasoning.)

Let's put it another way. You're a 33% shooter and have beaten the 0.005% chances and made nine straight threes in a game. Convince me without asking me to trust your feelings that I draw up the three pointer to win the game for you and not a 52% equal. Why should I believe an unexplained force has elevated your skill instead of being a natural fluctuation with a limited unknown lifespan? Now if you don't believe that why would you believe it over another nine shots? Why would you believe that making a shot increases your odds of making another shot? Should call it the Antoine Walker or Charles Barkley Corollary.

Not to mention, that in a population of anything over say, 12, your margin of error is going so off the charts to where the sample is meaningless. There is pretty much zero way you could reach a 95% confidence level with a sample of 9.

[koberulz]

How would you design a machine with a 65% RANDOM chance of making a shot on every shot? And even if you could what would be the relevance?

Dunno, not an engineer.

This article mentions the study I referred to in my previous post, which seems, from what was mentioned, to ignore multiple consecutive makes.

Neil thinks a lot of stupid things but I'd have to see a link. Even so he is but one man, and man believes a lot of stupid things.

This is true, though most of what I've read on the hot hand was on B-R, so it's most of my knowledge of the statistician's view on it. Here he is thinking the hot hand is a choice, for example. Though he may have just wandered into clutch ability there, he seems to be saying the two are basically the same thing.

Anyway. What's your argument and explanation for the so-called existence of it? Other than sheer faith? The only explanation I can see is a regression fallacy combined with a small sample size. (Plus the emotional high breaking down logical reasoning.)

I think this is a fairly good explanation of it.

Why should I believe an unexplained force has elevated your skill instead of being a natural fluctuation with a limited unknown lifespan?

To me, the hot hand is the latter, not the former, provided that the shooter is aware of a difference in thought process or execution, rather than just results. If I go 6-8 from three but have no idea why, that's just luck, and there's no reason to believe it will continue, so you're better off treating me as the 40% shooter I usually am than the 75% shooter I have been. On the other hand, if I go 6-8 from three and have a greater awareness of my form, and focus more than usual, that's the hot hand and I see no reason it should go away before the end of the game, though I'm not a psychologist or anything so it's not really my area. I find it unlikely, though, that anything less than a change in the circumstances under which I'm shooting would cause that temporarily heightened focus to disappear.

There's also the fact that, removing 'heat check' shots from the equation, the confidence given by prior success could well make the next shot more likely to go in.

Not to mention, that in a population of anything over say, 12, your margin of error is going so off the charts to where the sample is meaningless. There is pretty much zero way you could reach a 95% confidence level with a sample of 9.

What?

[benji]

A few notes first.

The paper presented in that truehoop link was not the one I mentioned as flawed, I was thinking of the Gilovich paper, I actually didn't know someone had attempted a new one. I'll have to see if I can get ahold of the actual paper before I can critique it instead of going off their slides, I'll see if it's available in the journals of if they'll send it to me. (Hopefully the data too!) The original is flawed because it looked at the wrong thing. It's a base statistical analysis, it needed to do something different to properly eliminate all the standard deviation jumps. But even worse than that, it compared consecutive shots over MULTIPLE GAMES and cut whenever a miss happened while ignoring things like 8/10 or 6/9.

Neil is not a great writer which doesn't help him but I hope his point there is that any player can have a random streak of luck that creates multiple feedbacks.

That explanation of the hot hand is no different from mine except for one thing. The problem is the citation ignores the near infinite number of variables involved. Even if some players focus when hitting shots, others will use it as a sign to keep bombing and in both cases defense, offense, girls in the stand, calls, etc. all play a part in any continuance of the hot hand.

Here's the thing. If you tell me it's just luck there's no chance you get the shot, no chance for the heroics, no chance for expanded role, no chance for mo money mo problems, etc. You have every incentive to think you're on fire. While I have every incentive to think your random streak of luck is over and the next shot won't even glaze the rim, while my best odds are to go with the guy who over 5000 shots crushed you by a landslide. Especially since you were "hot" so you on the court is going to draw defense. Don't forget our original point was Adelman pulling "hot" people (which in any segment of any game can't be considered so) to maintain his rotation for team harmony and standardization reasons. You can give a player having a good streak extra time until his luck runs out but there is no logical reason to ever think it's going to continue instead of dying and killing you just when it happens and it brings chaos to a set rotation. I've seen or analyzed far too many games where someone like Brandon Jennings goes off for 7/7 with no turnovers and then spends the rest of the game never hitting a shot or holding onto the ball.

Again, there are far too many variables to grant it onto a single player.

Re: your last "study" it didn't say any of that or at least the article didn't. Specifically it noted:

The researchers, at the University of Cologne, also note that extraordinary talent, hard work and physical conditioning were probably more important than his shorts.

And also indicates that good luck charms and superstitions actually ease state of mind so negatives are not focused on as the religious talisman is there to protect you. The only way making a shot could make the next one go in is that you're less willing to pass up opportunity because you're...on an emotional high and full of self-esteem. Also. We've more than noted on this forum people thinking they were dominating games to find out they shot 1/9 with 15 turnovers.

What?

Statistics? Margins of Error? Confidence Interval? Sample size of 9 shots being basically irrelevant?

Think of this. If you play roulette and you bet on one number over and over. And it starts coming up over and over. Are you going to keep playing that number forever, or are you going to get suspicious the more it comes up? Will you make money playing roulette? Really ever? Or should you play blackjack where you have more control on odds? Or even better, a game like craps where you can operate solely on the odds of any situation and thus minimize your risk at all times when needed?

[Houndy]

Nets upset Hawks....
Mavs survive Pistons.......
Wasington wins

[[Q]]

when you guys talk about a hot hand it sounds like you guys are talking about a lucky streak in gambling. it's like winning in a game that has crazy hot/cold streaks like roulette or craps

[benji]

That's exactly what it is, a lucky "streak." But it's treated as this notion of a temporary mystical step into godhood where you cannot be stopped and only fools would think the odds still apply. Oh and it has nothing to do with an emotional state.

I wouldn't call roulette or craps games of hot or cold streaks either. Roulette is entirely random chance with no literally possible way to improve your odds on any single situation, while craps at least lets you play based on the odds on the situation at hand. If you want to make any money and have patience and a sound mind, you can make money off craps better than anything else in a casino. The only reason blackjack seems better is because it plays faster, plus you can get kicked out for actually playing the odds.

[john26]

zomg reggie evans 10 rebs in 11 mins

[Doobie]

Knicks are the hottest team in the eastern conference . I don't remember the last time I was able to say this. Atlanta on saturday, we play them at home. Last year we owned ATL, let's see what happens this year.

I do admit I am nervous about how the Knicks play down the stretch, blowing leads at tthe end of games. We could've easily lost both games to the bobcats.

[Lamrock]

Atlanta has been pretty awful this year, Should be a win for New York to get them over .500 for the first time in 27 years.

70 wins is starting to look somewhat unlikely for the Heat at this point.

[jonthefon]

That is a really soft schedule for the Knicks though.

As for the Mavs? There's some obscure Godfather quote I'm trying to think of...

phpBB [video]

Now they're going to bounce through this four-in-five stretch undefeated, then promptly lose five in a row to a series of mediocre teams

[Doobie]

That is a really soft schedule for the Knicks though.

Next games are ATL, DET, NJ, NOH, TOR, MIN, TOR, WAS...
Those are the next 8 games, very possible to go 6-2 during that stretch. Then we have 3 games against DEN, BOS, and MIA... So we'll see what happens from now.