First, lets be clear that ‘average’ means exactly what it says. It is not the representation of any given game, but a collective assessment over a wide range of games. The actual experience in any given game of that average is almost always going to be different from ‘the average’.

In that context, what ‘hot hand’ means is that in this particular game, a player’s scoring mechanics are most finely aligned (tendons and ligments, mental game, e.t.c) while in a ‘slump’ they are most off. So in game 2, for some reason, Ray’s shooting mechanics were about as sharp as they can be, while in game 3, they were as off as they can be. In game 4, they are more likely to return to an intermediate state, in which the actual manifestation is more in line with what has been seen before (5/7, 3/8, 2/5 shooting nights, that kind of thing).

The issue I see with statistical analysis and statements that say a certain sequence is bound to happen even randomly is that it obscures what is going in in the mind of a player, which is not random at the point of experience. Rather I believe what that statement actually indicates is that for any given good basketball player, there is a very high likelihood that playing mechanics will be so finely tuned that an exceptional game will result at some point, and that we should not be surprised if that happens.

The surprise comes if that exceptional occurence happens for so long that it stretches the imagination to call it exceptional any more, even though it would appear to be exceptional given previous assessment of that players capabilities.

I’ll have to read the book. I’d love to get a chance to chat with guys, that must have been a good interview.