I think the point of the article is that if you use the naive selection criteria, anything over 41-43% on a 50% random chance is actually 'hot'. So it's probabl

I think the point of the article is that if you use the naive selection criteria, anything over 41-43% on a 50% random chance is actually 'hot'. So it's probably worth reviewing that study's selection criteria to see if in fact there's a larger hot hand factor than you might think at first glance. The second point the article makes is that it's very likely the selection criteria in your NBA study is not precisely defined enough to determine the baseline percentage.