• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Is rj right about the hot hand and the nerds are wrong?

If you have to ask, you don't understand. Everything can't be described by numbers. There is no human factor in your world in games played by humans.

My bad, those who haven't played or coached can't understand this. But they can read numbers.
 
I was just referencing the "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" tenor of your last post.
 
I think that you should be forced to divulge your basketball experience along with your opinion on the existence of the hot hand, you nerds.
 
That's all there is to this small song but
waitress, before you leave,
Would you bring me some coffee
and a hot ham sandwich, please?
 
If you have to ask, you don't understand. Everything can't be described by numbers. There is no human factor in your world in games played by humans.

My bad, those who haven't played or coached can't understand this. But they can read numbers.

well how can we argue if something does or doesn't exist if you can't even say what it is?

you can never be wrong if you don't have a definition on the record
 
To all my nerds out there.

Do you not think confidence plays a factor in a players ability to preform, and do you then also think recent short term successes increase players confidence?
 
well how can we argue if something does or doesn't exist if you can't even say what it is?

you can never be wrong if you don't have a definition on the record

I’d say a good start for a definition of “hot hand” would be any streak of four or more jump shots by one player in a single game (and likely within a specific time period within a single game) in which the shooting percentage is above ~ 70% throughout.
 
Thanks for proving my point about you not understanding the game that can't be defined in little boxes or a nerds numbers.

Tell me what number you can use to determine that a player helps his team by helping in the locker room and diffusing problems?
 
What's the difference between a hot hand and clustering?

It’s probably easier to describe the difference between a cold hand and clustering.

If a 40% shooter shoots often enough, he’s going to have several clusters of 1 for 10, purely due to chance.

He’s also going to have nights where there is a specific, identifiable problem with his shot (mental or physical).

The line between the two can be blurry, and most people may suck at making the distinction, but the difference is real.
 
I’d say a good start for a definition of “hot hand” would be any streak of four or more jump shots by one player in a single game (and likely within a specific time period within a single game) in which the shooting percentage is above ~ 70% throughout.

Keep in mind, that I don't know the basketball data well enough to argue one way or another whether the "hot hand" exists. But I think you are misunderstanding the hot hand argument, similar to RJ. You are simply describing a streak of made baskets over a small sample size. Those occur for various reasons, like clustering or other variables. It's possible there are other mental or physical reasons why a player would go through a hot or cold spell. The problem with the hot hand argument, or pitcher vs. hitter data, is when you start to value the small sample size of past performance, in predicting the player's next FGA/AB. I think the data proves that in determining what a player will do in his next opportunity, if you are a decision maker (should i pinch hit?, who should take the last shot?), is that you should ALWAYS value the larger sample size over the smaller size because it is simply more predictive.

RJ uses the fact that hot streaks exist (no one argues they don't) as proof of the hot hand. Whereas others are arguing that you shouldn't let it impact your decision making.

It’s probably easier to describe the difference between a cold hand and clustering.

If a 40% shooter shoots often enough, he’s going to have several clusters of 1 for 10, purely due to chance.

He’s also going to have nights where there is a specific, identifiable problem with his shot (mental or physical).

The line between the two can be blurry, and most people may suck at making the distinction, but the difference is real.

Why is looking at "cold hand" different than looking at "hot hand" here?
 
Back
Top