Ok, you are correctly stating a valid argument, but relating it misleadingly to the overall argument (in my opinion) based on an irrelevant premise. Sure, one shot has no bearing on the next shot-- in and of itself. But, what about the factors contributing to the streakiness of the player? Is he rested, not injured, and generally prepared for the defense layed out? Are his teammates setting picks, running his favorite plays, wearing down their defense? I've watched enough (and played) basketball to know that there ARE certain times when the "streakiness" can be embraced.

I know I feel it when I play. It's very intuitive, yet completely wrong. That's why the field is interesting to me.

See my response to Dwoggurd for more detail, but the basic point is that I'm not proposing a hypothetical about what I think would happen. I'm explaining what rigorous studies have observed when objectively looking at what happens during professional basketball games.

Now, clutch hitting? Sheesh. There are hitters that are streaky. I won't even bust any stats here, but I've seen enough and played enough to know that it's true.

If you can bust those stats, you can resolve one of the thornier issues among baseball stathead geeks. Basically, the argument is about whether "clutch hitting" exists at all, with the two sides settling somewhere between "utterly undetectable" and "very minor".

Again, though, I like the argument man. It's easy for us to counter with such nice ammo . Let's not just argue the stats for global warming and I'm cool.

I guess I didn't figure that a published, peer-reviewed economist's study counts as "nice ammo".

Feel free to bring global warming to the off-topic board. I know a thing or two about it.

Keep in mind all that you can prove, disprove almost anything with statistics.

Which is why reputable publications use a peer-review process to evaluate the validity of methods.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com