February 1, 2012
1 min read
Add Us On GoogleAdd SciAmThe Not-So-Hot Hand
Pro basketball players are much more likely to try another three-point shot after making one than after missing one
By John Matson
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.
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
