On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Reggie Miller, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant. They’ve all gone on seemingly memorable shooting streaks. But past research has shown that the so-called hot hand is a myth, rooted in our tendency to see patterns where there are none.
Myth or no, the shooters still seem to think they’re on fire when statistics show they’re not. A recent study finds that professional basketball players put too much stock in the outcome of their last three-point shot. If they make a three-pointer, they are much more likely to try another one than if they had missed. The study, appearing in the journal Nature Communications, used game stats for hundreds of NBA and WNBA players. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)
The Lakers’ Bryant was a prime example in his MVP season of 2007–2008. When Bryant made a three-pointer, he shot again from downtown nearly four times as often as he did following a missed three. But trying to ride a three-point streak is often bad strategy. Players actually tend to shoot a lower percentage after making shots than after missing them—once again sending the idea of the “hot hand” up in smoke.
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
