One of the more exasperating sports 'debates' is about whether basketball players are capable of getting 'the hot hand'. To summarize, some (usually current or former players) believe athletes 'get hot' and briefly perform at a level higher than usual. Others (usually non-athletes) counter by pointing out that long 'hot streaks' are a natural result of any probability-based set of outcomes. Sometimes, they support the argument by citing how any tossed coin can land on heads ten times in a row (1).
Nassim Nicholas Taleb addresses a similar idea in The Black Swan. He uses an example of a gambler at a roulette wheel. Let's say the last ten spins have hit RED. What to bet on next?
An academic knows the wheel is perfectly balanced and the RED streak is only variation. Thus, the academic says to ignore the results because the next spin is equally likely to be RED or BLACK.
The savvy gambler, though, will suggest RED. Why?
In this case, the key is to consider the assumption. Is the board actually balanced? If the board is NOT balanced, the streak is evidence of a tendency toward RED. Perhaps the wheel is slightly tilted or the casino is running a scam of sorts. The wise move here is to bet on RED and reap the rewards until the casino corrects the wheel.
If the board is balanced, the streak is indeed variation. Betting RED or BLACK is irrelevant since the odds are equal in this case. Since the gambler truly does not know if the board is broken or not, the best move is to bet RED. If the board is broken, it pays off. But if the board is straight, well, it's fifty-fifty, so it doesn't matter either way, right?
This is (sort of) my stance on the 'hot or not' question. In basketball, I need to question the assumption, not the result. If players do indeed 'get hot', I damn well better start playing defense! But if players do not, well, it is probably still a good idea to play defense!
One way or the other, a player who has just scored must be defended better. If he's hot, he's hot, and defense is the equivalent of a fire hose pointed at the blaze. If not? Well, the player scored and maybe this is due to a non-shooting factor such as not contesting the entry pass, not communicating about the offense's movement, or simply moving too lazily to get into defensive position. But hot or not, the strategy does not change one bit: just play better defense, all the time.
Footnotes / imagined complaints
1. A classic 'two sides arguing different things' situation?
I see problems with the way both sides present their argument. First, when most athletes talk of 'getting hot', they are usually describing elevated performance in general, not necessarily describing a streak of ten straight successes. In the NBA, for example, a 36% three-point success rate is considered the minimum standard. The top shooter in the league, Stephen Curry, shot 44% and 45% during his two MVP winning seasons. So if the 'baseline' shooter suddenly 'got hot' in a game, he might hit at a rate close to Curry's 45% as opposed to hitting every shot he takes. Perhaps a more rigorous definition of 'getting hot' might bring this debate to an unsatisfying but much needed close.
