Aug
12
Hot Handed Cricketeers, from Pitt T. Maner III
August 12, 2012 |
Scientists find that success breeds success in sports:
"In the 1980s, psychologists showed that the hot hand idea in basketball was based on the misperception of random sequences. Now a statistical study of cricket scores suggests that it may have been premature to abandon the idea that success breeds success in sport"
"The 'hot hand' idea in sport is the belief that players who have had success in the past are more likely to be successful in the future. The most famous example is in basketball where many fans believe that a player is more likely to make a shot if he or she has successfully made the last 2 or 3 shots. In other words, the player has a 'hot hand'.
Back in the 1980s, three cognitive psychologists decided to take a closer look at this idea. Their studies showed that basketball fans indeed believed in the hot hand idea in shot sequences. They then examined the actual shot success rate of specific players to see if there was any truth in the idea.
The results were a surprise, at least for basketball fans. While some players are certainly better shooters than other players, the psychologists found no evidence of a hot hand phenomenon. The chances of success on the next shot are not correlated with the success of the last shot. In other words the hot hand idea is a fallacy.
The psychologists attributed the effect to a general misunderstanding of random sequences: long sequences of successful (and unsuccessful) shots naturally occur at random. They just look as if the player has a hot hand.
(A similar effect occurs in coin tossing experiments when people think a tail is more likely to occur after a long sequence of heads. This is known as the gambler's fallacy.)
In 1985, they published their results in a paper called "The Hot Hand in Basketball: On the Misperception of Random Sequences" and since then hot hand effect has been generally considered a fallacy.
But as a sports fan, it's hard to let go of the idea that success breeds success. Indeed, there has been huge debate since then over whether hot hand effects exist or not.
Today, researchers reveal that the hot hand effect is alive and well in the game of cricket.
The evidence comes from the work of Haroldo Ribeiro at the Universidade Estadual de Maringa in that well known cricket-loving country, Brazil, and a couple of pals.
These guys have examined the rate of scoring in three types of international cricket match played between 2002 and 2011. The three types are T20, which lasts for about 3 hours, one day games which last for about 8 hours and Test cricket, which lasts for five days.
The hot hand phenomenon is a type of memory effect since future performance is determined by events in the past. Because of this, there are well-established statistical techniques for revealing its presence.
Ribeiro and co duly put the data through its paces, examining not only the evolution of the scores over time but their variance too. They say they can clearly see long range memory effects at work. "This result shows that there is long-range memory in the score evolution… positive values are followed by positive values and negative values are followed by negative values much more frequently than by chance," they say.
So if a cricket team starts off scoring well it is more likely to score strongly later in its innings. Conversely, if a team starts badly, it is more likely to continue this poor run.
Interestingly, this effect is just as clear in Test cricket over 5 days as it is in T20 cricket over three hours. So the memory effect works over extremely long timescales, compared for example to basketball shooting sequences.
"The long-range persistent behavior in the score evolution not only indicates the existence of this phenomenon in cricket, but also suggests that this phenomenon can act over a very long temporal scale," say Ribeiro and co.
That's an interesting result. Cricket is a hugely psychological game in which confidence plays a major role. If confidence is contagious, it makes sense that early success can lead to success in the future.
Ribeiro and co say their methods can be applied to other sports as well so it should be possible to see the statistical fingerprint of a hot hand effect in other areas too.
The next question is whether this will effect sports strategy in future and in what way. Suggestions in the comments section below.
Comments
Archives
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- Older Archives
Resources & Links
- The Letters Prize
- Pre-2007 Victor Niederhoffer Posts
- Vic’s NYC Junto
- Reading List
- Programming in 60 Seconds
- The Objectivist Center
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Tigerchess
- Dick Sears' G.T. Index
- Pre-2007 Daily Speculations
- Laurel & Vics' Worldly Investor Articles