MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Random happens.

Right, and the key word there is happens - it does happen.  Both streaks (what we call hot and cold) do happen.  We can prove all kinds of things about the probability of these streaks with math and statistics, but the fact is they do still HAPPEN.

[KnightSlappy]

Random happens.

Right, and the key word there is happens - it does happen.  Both streaks (what we call hot and cold) do happen.  We can prove all kinds of things about the probability of these streaks with math and statistics, but the fact is they do still HAPPEN.

We can obviously see that there are stretches of makes and misses, but the lesson we all just learned is that 40% shooter should be expected to shoot 40%. All the time. Whether he's just about to "get hot", he is "hot", he's "cold", about to "get cold", just was "hot", average, or whatever, we should expect him to shoot 40%. At no point should his expected percentage go up or down.

[ziggy]

Random happens.

Right, and the key word there is happens - it does happen.  Both streaks (what we call hot and cold) do happen.  We can prove all kinds of things about the probability of these streaks with math and statistics, but the fact is they do still HAPPEN.

We can obviously see that there are stretches of makes and misses, but the lesson we all just learned is that 40% shooter should be expected to shoot 40%. All the time. Whether he's just about to "get hot", he is "hot", he's "cold", about to "get cold", just was "hot", average, or whatever, we should expect him to shoot 40%. At no point should his expected percentage go up or down.

The implication is that a coach should not be maligned for substitution patterns involving a seemingly "hot" or "cold" shooter. My personal experience in such matters tells me that the evidence presented over the last two days will be dismissed and much grumbling will take place throughout West Michigan from November through March.

[hope_hoops1]

Just to play devil's advocate to this argument today, if a shooter is a 40% shooter and makes 5 straight threes, the shooting percentage would also go up.  So, now the shooter is a 43% shooter (let's say, obviously dependent on the total number of shots) so the probability of making the next shot would be slightly higher (43% vs. 40%).  The argument then becomes whether the shooter is truly a 40% shooter or a 43% shooter?

I think the phrase "60% of all statistics are made up" might apply to my argument above but I tend to believe that hot streaks are random sampling (contrary to my argument).  Just because you flip a coin and it comes up heads three times in a row doesn't increase your chances of the next flip being heads.

If only shooting a basketball was as simple as flipping a coin....

[Knightmare]

On the subject of "hot" and "cold" shooting, I think there is a point that some are missing.  While someone might be expected to be a  roughly 40% 3pt. shooter, that might be true and consistent over the course of time, not short stretches defined by individual games where a player very clearly can be "hot" or "cold".  For example lets say that a player has a 3-game stretch where he takes 33 total 3pt. shots (a high # of 3pt. shots but this is just a hypothetical example).  In game #1 player goes 8/11 for 72.7% 3-pt. shooting in that game.  In game #2 player goes 1/11 for 9% 3pt. shooting and in game #3 player shoots 4/11 for 36%.  Overall that player just shot 13/33 for 39% over that 3-game stretch but I think that we can all agree that on an individual game by game basis there were definitely some "hot" and "cold" shooting spells.  One can expect that over time these balance out and the overall % creates an average expected shooting %.  I think one only needs to ask former New York Knick John Starks about his game 7 of the 1994 NBA Finals shooting performance of 2-18 and he would tell you that shooters can most definitely get hot and cold.

Confidence and the mental state of a player is often overlooked as an integral part of shooting a basketball, it's not just about your shot mechanics.  There have been many great shooters with poor mechanics but they were mentally strong and confident and many good poor shooters with great mechanics.

[ziggy]

Just to play devil's advocate to this argument today, if a shooter is a 40% shooter and makes 5 straight threes, the shooting percentage would also go up.  So, now the shooter is a 43% shooter (let's say, obviously dependent on the total number of shots) so the probability of making the next shot would be slightly higher (43% vs. 40%).  The argument then becomes whether the shooter is truly a 40% shooter or a 43% shooter?

I think the phrase "60% of all statistics are made up" might apply to my argument above but I tend to believe that hot streaks are random sampling (contrary to my argument).  Just because you flip a coin and it comes up heads three times in a row doesn't increase your chances of the next flip being heads.

If only shooting a basketball was as simple as flipping a coin....

That is an issue of sample size. Obviously a guy that goes 1-for-1 is not really a 100% shooter and a guy that goes 0-for-1 is not really a 0% shooter.

The difference between a 40% shooter and 43% shooter is only three makes for every 100 shots, far less than what would be considered the difference between "hot" and "cold".

The analogy of flipping a coin is exactly right based on the analysis debunking hot and cold streaks.

[Knightmare]

Just to play devil's advocate to this argument today, if a shooter is a 40% shooter and makes 5 straight threes, the shooting percentage would also go up.  So, now the shooter is a 43% shooter (let's say, obviously dependent on the total number of shots) so the probability of making the next shot would be slightly higher (43% vs. 40%).  The argument then becomes whether the shooter is truly a 40% shooter or a 43% shooter?

I think the phrase "60% of all statistics are made up" might apply to my argument above but I tend to believe that hot streaks are random sampling (contrary to my argument).  Just because you flip a coin and it comes up heads three times in a row doesn't increase your chances of the next flip being heads.

If only shooting a basketball was as simple as flipping a coin....

Don't think you can really compare a coin flip streak of multiple heads in a row to a basketball shooting streak of multiple makes in a row.

A coin flip is non-emotional event, while making or missing a basketball shot creates an ebb and flow of emotions that also factor in to the next shot taken.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Random happens.

Right, and the key word there is happens - it does happen.  Both streaks (what we call hot and cold) do happen.  We can prove all kinds of things about the probability of these streaks with math and statistics, but the fact is they do still HAPPEN.

We can obviously see that there are stretches of makes and misses, but the lesson we all just learned is that 40% shooter should be expected to shoot 40%. All the time. Whether he's just about to "get hot", he is "hot", he's "cold", about to "get cold", just was "hot", average, or whatever, we should expect him to shoot 40%. At no point should his expected percentage go up or down.

The implication is that a coach should not be maligned for substitution patterns involving a seemingly "hot" or "cold" shooter. My personal experience in such matters tells me that the evidence presented over the last two days will be dismissed and much grumbling will take place throughout West Michigan from November through March.

BTW - I love this discussion!!!

So we're at the end of a really tight game and your team is down by 3.  You have time to run a single play to get one guy a shot to tie the game.  

Player A is 0-6 that night from 3, but averages 40% from behind the arc.  
Player B is 4-5 from 3, but only averages 25% from behind the arc.  

Who do you run the play for?

[KnightSlappy]

Random happens.

Right, and the key word there is happens - it does happen.  Both streaks (what we call hot and cold) do happen.  We can prove all kinds of things about the probability of these streaks with math and statistics, but the fact is they do still HAPPEN.

We can obviously see that there are stretches of makes and misses, but the lesson we all just learned is that 40% shooter should be expected to shoot 40%. All the time. Whether he's just about to "get hot", he is "hot", he's "cold", about to "get cold", just was "hot", average, or whatever, we should expect him to shoot 40%. At no point should his expected percentage go up or down.

The implication is that a coach should not be maligned for substitution patterns involving a seemingly "hot" or "cold" shooter. My personal experience in such matters tells me that the evidence presented over the last two days will be dismissed and much grumbling will take place throughout West Michigan from November through March.

BTW - I love this discussion!!!

So we're at the end of a really tight game and your team is down by 3.  You have time to run a single play to get one guy a shot to tie the game.  

Player A is 0-6 that night from 3, but averages 40% from behind the arc.  
Player B is 4-5 from 3, but only averages 25% from behind the arc.  

Who do you run the play for?

Basically, do you want a "cold" Veltema, or a "hot" Mantel.

Cold Veltema. Every Time.

[ziggy]

Just to play devil's advocate to this argument today, if a shooter is a 40% shooter and makes 5 straight threes, the shooting percentage would also go up.  So, now the shooter is a 43% shooter (let's say, obviously dependent on the total number of shots) so the probability of making the next shot would be slightly higher (43% vs. 40%).  The argument then becomes whether the shooter is truly a 40% shooter or a 43% shooter?

I think the phrase "60% of all statistics are made up" might apply to my argument above but I tend to believe that hot streaks are random sampling (contrary to my argument).  Just because you flip a coin and it comes up heads three times in a row doesn't increase your chances of the next flip being heads.

If only shooting a basketball was as simple as flipping a coin....

Don't think you can really compare a coin flip streak of multiple heads in a row to a basketball shooting streak of multiple makes in a row.

A coin flip is non-emotional event, while making or missing a basketball shot creates an ebb and flow of emotions that also factor in to the next shot taken.

It fits in that the statistical analysis determines that a shooter is no more or less likely to make a shot based on the outcome of the previous shot just as a coin is no more or less likely to come up on one side based on what side came up the time before. If you want to throw out what the studies have concluded then that is fine but that sort of ends the discussion.

[ziggy]

Random happens.

Right, and the key word there is happens - it does happen.  Both streaks (what we call hot and cold) do happen.  We can prove all kinds of things about the probability of these streaks with math and statistics, but the fact is they do still HAPPEN.

We can obviously see that there are stretches of makes and misses, but the lesson we all just learned is that 40% shooter should be expected to shoot 40%. All the time. Whether he's just about to "get hot", he is "hot", he's "cold", about to "get cold", just was "hot", average, or whatever, we should expect him to shoot 40%. At no point should his expected percentage go up or down.

The implication is that a coach should not be maligned for substitution patterns involving a seemingly "hot" or "cold" shooter. My personal experience in such matters tells me that the evidence presented over the last two days will be dismissed and much grumbling will take place throughout West Michigan from November through March.

BTW - I love this discussion!!!

So we're at the end of a really tight game and your team is down by 3.  You have time to run a single play to get one guy a shot to tie the game.  

Player A is 0-6 that night from 3, but averages 40% from behind the arc.  
Player B is 4-5 from 3, but only averages 25% from behind the arc.  

Who do you run the play for?

How about this: Hope leads a game late and the opposing team is fouling to extend the game. Do you want the other team to not send Peter Bunn to the the free throw line if he had only made 1-of-4 earlier in the game?

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Random happens.

Right, and the key word there is happens - it does happen.  Both streaks (what we call hot and cold) do happen.  We can prove all kinds of things about the probability of these streaks with math and statistics, but the fact is they do still HAPPEN.

We can obviously see that there are stretches of makes and misses, but the lesson we all just learned is that 40% shooter should be expected to shoot 40%. All the time. Whether he's just about to "get hot", he is "hot", he's "cold", about to "get cold", just was "hot", average, or whatever, we should expect him to shoot 40%. At no point should his expected percentage go up or down.

The implication is that a coach should not be maligned for substitution patterns involving a seemingly "hot" or "cold" shooter. My personal experience in such matters tells me that the evidence presented over the last two days will be dismissed and much grumbling will take place throughout West Michigan from November through March.

BTW - I love this discussion!!!

So we're at the end of a really tight game and your team is down by 3.  You have time to run a single play to get one guy a shot to tie the game.  

Player A is 0-6 that night from 3, but averages 40% from behind the arc.  
Player B is 4-5 from 3, but only averages 25% from behind the arc.  

Who do you run the play for?

Basically, do you want a "cold" Veltema, or a "hot" Mantel.

Cold Veltema. Every Time.

I honestly was not thinking of any specific players when I posed my question, but I can fully appreciate your answer. 

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Random happens.

Right, and the key word there is happens - it does happen.  Both streaks (what we call hot and cold) do happen.  We can prove all kinds of things about the probability of these streaks with math and statistics, but the fact is they do still HAPPEN.

We can obviously see that there are stretches of makes and misses, but the lesson we all just learned is that 40% shooter should be expected to shoot 40%. All the time. Whether he's just about to "get hot", he is "hot", he's "cold", about to "get cold", just was "hot", average, or whatever, we should expect him to shoot 40%. At no point should his expected percentage go up or down.

The implication is that a coach should not be maligned for substitution patterns involving a seemingly "hot" or "cold" shooter. My personal experience in such matters tells me that the evidence presented over the last two days will be dismissed and much grumbling will take place throughout West Michigan from November through March.

BTW - I love this discussion!!!

So we're at the end of a really tight game and your team is down by 3.  You have time to run a single play to get one guy a shot to tie the game.  

Player A is 0-6 that night from 3, but averages 40% from behind the arc.  
Player B is 4-5 from 3, but only averages 25% from behind the arc.  

Who do you run the play for?

How about this: Hope leads a game late and the opposing team is fouling to extend the game. Do you want the other team to not send Peter Bunn to the the free throw line if he had only made 1-of-4 earlier in the game?

Of course I want Pete at the line, who wouldn't.  Still interested in what you would do in my scenario (which was not written with any specific team or players in mind).

[ziggy]

Random happens.

Right, and the key word there is happens - it does happen.  Both streaks (what we call hot and cold) do happen.  We can prove all kinds of things about the probability of these streaks with math and statistics, but the fact is they do still HAPPEN.

We can obviously see that there are stretches of makes and misses, but the lesson we all just learned is that 40% shooter should be expected to shoot 40%. All the time. Whether he's just about to "get hot", he is "hot", he's "cold", about to "get cold", just was "hot", average, or whatever, we should expect him to shoot 40%. At no point should his expected percentage go up or down.

The implication is that a coach should not be maligned for substitution patterns involving a seemingly "hot" or "cold" shooter. My personal experience in such matters tells me that the evidence presented over the last two days will be dismissed and much grumbling will take place throughout West Michigan from November through March.

BTW - I love this discussion!!!

So we're at the end of a really tight game and your team is down by 3.  You have time to run a single play to get one guy a shot to tie the game.  

Player A is 0-6 that night from 3, but averages 40% from behind the arc.  
Player B is 4-5 from 3, but only averages 25% from behind the arc.  

Who do you run the play for?

How about this: Hope leads a game late and the opposing team is fouling to extend the game. Do you want the other team to not send Peter Bunn to the the free throw line if he had only made 1-of-4 earlier in the game?

Of course I want Pete at the line, who wouldn't.  Still interested in what you would do in my scenario (which was not written with any specific team or players in mind).

It is questions like this that put coaches in no-win scenarios. The decision is ultimately judged in hindsight which means fans label it right or wrong solely based on the outcome. In general, I want the ball in my best player's hands. If you can guarantee me an open shot for either player then I want the 40% shooter to take the shot but I don't want him forcing it if he is the focus of the defense.

[Knightmare]

Just to play devil's advocate to this argument today, if a shooter is a 40% shooter and makes 5 straight threes, the shooting percentage would also go up.  So, now the shooter is a 43% shooter (let's say, obviously dependent on the total number of shots) so the probability of making the next shot would be slightly higher (43% vs. 40%).  The argument then becomes whether the shooter is truly a 40% shooter or a 43% shooter?

I think the phrase "60% of all statistics are made up" might apply to my argument above but I tend to believe that hot streaks are random sampling (contrary to my argument).  Just because you flip a coin and it comes up heads three times in a row doesn't increase your chances of the next flip being heads.

If only shooting a basketball was as simple as flipping a coin....

Don't think you can really compare a coin flip streak of multiple heads in a row to a basketball shooting streak of multiple makes in a row.

A coin flip is non-emotional event, while making or missing a basketball shot creates an ebb and flow of emotions that also factor in to the next shot taken.

It fits in that the statistical analysis determines that a shooter is no more or less likely to make a shot based on the outcome of the previous shot just as a coin is no more or less likely to come up on one side based on what side came up the time before. If you want to throw out what the studies have concluded then that is fine but that sort of ends the discussion.

I would agree with that if it was robots playing all the games.

Are you saying then that game situation and nerves play no part whatsoever in the likelihood of the outcome in an emotional event (as basketball games often are).  Because I've seen a lot more good free throw shooters miss one at the end of the game when they hadn't taken any FT's through the course of the game than when they've already taken a few and are in a good rhythm.

In something such as sports you can't apply ONLY statistics, if that was the case then Derek Jeter wouldn't be thought of as highly as he is.  ARod has better overall statistics for the Yankees but with the game on the line and just needing a base hit in the bottom of the 9th most people would rather Derek Jeter at the plate than Arod regardless of what the overall statistics say for a 9 inning game.

The reason prior results don't play a part in coin flips is because a coin is an inanimate, non-breathing, non-emotional subject that has no memory.  The same can't be said for a human.