Hollinger Preview [Archive] - Bobcatsplanet Forum

App Bobcat

10-01-2009, 03:07 AM

Outlook

http://assets.espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nba/leg/trans/cha.gif (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=cha)

Charlotte has only two positive indicators in its favor. First, the Cats finished strongly last year, with their remodeled roster playing essentially .500 ball after the slow start. Second, Charlotte granted an inordinate number of minutes last year to players who contributed sub-replacement-level production, a feat that would be almost impossible to repeat. Even if they replace those minutes with players who are merely "poor" instead of "terrible," they'll come out ahead on the bargain.
Another bright spot is the schedule -- the wildly unbalanced home-road split of the past two years has been replaced with something far more even, which should make it easier for the Bobcats to dig out of the early hole that Brown's teams habitually dig for themselves.
Despite those positives, it's tough to be optimistic about the team's prospects for this season. The Chandler trade was a downgrade, and it was the worst kind for them because it exchanged a halfway decent scorer for a subpar one. The Bobcats were already desperate for offense, so this move just puts more pressure on the likes of Diaw and Wallace to create opportunities.
Wallace is one of the league's most underrated players, an electrifying forward who might be an All-Star on a more prominent team, but he's more of an all-around force than a go-to scorer. Diaw has similar limitations, and with two infrequent scorers around them in Chandler and Bell, turnovers are the probable result, just like a year ago. Murray will help with his firepower off the bench, but he may not play heavy minutes given the crowded backcourt; at any rate, expecting a repeat of last season seems unrealistic.
In fact, Charlotte may very well finish dead last in offensive efficiency this season. Only two players -- Wallace and Augustin -- project to post PERs above the league average. And if injuries hit, forget it -- the tight financial fists and poor drafts have left the Bobcats with so little depth that their second-round draft pick will almost certainly be a rotation player.
As a result, the Bobcats will have to be extraordinary on defense just to smell .500. I suspect they'll be good at that end, because Brown's teams always are, but I doubt they'll be good enough to offset the offense.

Prediction: 29-53, 5th in Southeast Division, 12th in Eastern Conference

dnbman

10-01-2009, 06:49 AM

That's why Hollinger is so frustrating to read. I mean, the assumption is that if we have a second rounder as a rotation player that we are terrible. Nevermind the fact that we might have gotten a gem in the second round, as most analysts have suggested.

Clearly, the Bobcats are a team that will have to be greater than the sum of its parts. However, those parts aren't nearly as bad as Hollinger makes them out to be.

Muttley

10-01-2009, 07:54 AM

eh... Hollinger also had us in the playoffs last year almost entirely based on the addition of LB. maybe he's trying to do us a favor by saying we'll suck. It's one of those reverse-superstition things, perhaps.

ohara831

10-01-2009, 09:18 AM

Ohara (or anyone with an espn insider pass), could you post Hollinger's 09-10 preview for the 'Cats? It's up in the NBA section.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/trainingcamp09/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=BobcatsForecast0910

I will try to paste it and see if it takes. Many times, when I do this with an Insider article, it wont take.

teej

10-01-2009, 09:39 AM

Thanks app. that was just a pile of crap. He obviously didn't watch Mek or listen to LB...

BigMike

10-01-2009, 10:21 AM

Even if they replace those minutes with players who are merely "poor" instead of "terrible," they'll come out ahead on the bargain.

We spent how much of last year showing up to games with McMay, Nazi, and an empty 15 roster spot on the bench, Alexi, and Singularity in the D league. And a pair of D leaguers on 10day contracts?

I think he actually underestimated how terrible our 8th-15th men were.
The guys we have now are all solidly 'NOT bad' and with LB coaching them for a few weeks here in the preseason I am hoping some of them break into "good".

There is NO WAY we lose more games this season then last, so his 29-53 is off the mark. I say we do better then .500 basketball. 42-40 or better.

BRNC

10-01-2009, 11:25 AM

I think ( to a great degree ) his analysis of our offensive woes might be right on the money...(caveat) depending on how some parts (Vlad) actually fit-in and are used this year we could be better...if we can actually run more we could be better...but as someone already pointed out our 8-15 will be better but how this actually impacts the team we don't know yet...

WAM9

10-01-2009, 12:05 PM

I think Hollinger has posted a numbers review instead of a season prediction.

What I mean by that is this...

I know many people disagree about the Chandler - Okafor swap but to say that Okafor is an offensive weapon in any way shape or form is crazy. If he had actually watched the team play instead of just looking at the stats, he would know the difference.

I agree that normally, if a player from the 2nd round makes your rotation, that means bad things for you but in our case, I think Brown was 1st round talent and that isn't even touched on. Blair from SA is another example. He will probably make the rotation (for the Spurs even) but that doesn't mean the Spurs are thin, just that he was a great 2nd round value.

Quoting PER numbers is fine but we all know that games are actually played, not simmed. I just don't understand his angle on this.

Also, to say that we were a .500 team after the major trades is correct but that doesn't take into account our late season scheduling (road games) or the fact that injuries hurt us late. If you take our record from the trade to about 10 games left, we were definitely above .500. Again, you can make numbers say anything you want.

I just doubt he watched a lot of Bobcats games last year and is simply looking at the season totals. To say that we will be worse than last year, with a roster that went over .500 after the trade, and added Henderson, Brown and Murray (and swapped Chandler for Okafor) is crazy in my opinion.

Walt Cronkite

10-01-2009, 04:51 PM

^Hollinger knows Okafor isn't much of an offensive threat, but he knows Chandler is even more limited.

dnbman

10-01-2009, 05:56 PM

^Hollinger knows Okafor isn't much of an offensive threat, but he knows Chandler is even more limited.

Yeah, but what is the net drop in offense going to be, if any? Chandler's ability to get down the court will probably even out his more limited skill set. We could actually see a net gain at the C position.

BigE

10-01-2009, 07:47 PM

29-53?!?!?

I think the Bobcats will win atleast 40 games this season.

Walt Cronkite

10-01-2009, 10:10 PM

Yeah, but what is the net drop in offense going to be, if any? Chandler's ability to get down the court will probably even out his more limited skill set. We could actually see a net gain at the C position.

Fine. It just bugs me that the default response is always "if ___ only watched the games..."

Ampsportsduo

10-01-2009, 10:13 PM

Asking Hollinger about the Cats is like asking your dog if he likes your red shirt.

Pointless.

dnbman

10-01-2009, 10:19 PM

Fine. It just bugs me that the default response is always "if ___ only watched the games..."

I think you'd read that less if he looked beyond his statistics and paid attention to context. His comment about the 2nd rounder says it all about his thinking.

teej

10-01-2009, 10:22 PM

Fine. It just bugs me that the default response is always "if ___ only watched the games..."

How many Bobcats games sum total do you think the ESPN crew of Marc Stein, Ric Bucher, Chris Broussard, John Hollinger, Chris Sheridan, Chad Ford, and David Thorpe saw?

I'm going 7...1 each.

Walt Cronkite

10-01-2009, 11:37 PM

I think you'd read that less if he looked beyond his statistics and paid attention to context. His comment about the 2nd rounder says it all about his thinking.

"Derrick Brown was an early second-round pick who may play right away because the Bobcats' rotation is so thin at the forward spots. He's a good athlete with 3-point range who can play both forward spots, but he was unusually unproductive as a collegian."

What is untrue about this?

dnbman

10-02-2009, 06:50 AM

"Derrick Brown was an early second-round pick who may play right away because the Bobcats' rotation is so thin at the forward spots. He's a good athlete with 3-point range who can play both forward spots, but he was unusually unproductive as a collegian."

What is untrue about this?

According to the Hollinger rating system, probably nothing. This was the comment I was talking about:

the tight financial fists and poor drafts have left the Bobcats with so little depth that their second-round draft pick will almost certainly be a rotation player.

The assumption here is that if you have a second round pick as a rotation player, you must be sorely thin. However, as another stated, San Antonio will more than likely use Blair. Does he think that San Antonio is that thin?

I'm all for evidence and analysis. However, Hollinger's whole view of the sport seems to be based on algorithms with zero view of flow, team identity, character, or anything else. He's great to use for a different perspective on the players, one that seeks to be as unbiased as possible, which is great. However, an algorithm doesn't explain the whole story, and I don't think Hollinger is especially interested in filling in the gaps.

BigMike

10-02-2009, 08:13 AM

How many Bobcats games sum total do you think the ESPN crew of Marc Stein, Ric Bucher, Chris Broussard, John Hollinger, Chris Sheridan, Chad Ford, and David Thorpe saw?

I'm going 7...1 each.

Close, 14...
We played the Lakers 2 times last year.

WAM9

10-02-2009, 08:27 AM

Fine. It just bugs me that the default response is always "if ___ only watched the games..."

I use that as a default response only when it is appropriate. Do you really think Hollinger watches Bobcats games? If he watched them as much as I (and most on this forum) do, he would be a little better educated about them. I feel like there is far better analysis on the team on this forum.

Now if you are talking about the Lakers, Spurs, Celtics or Cavaliers, I bet he has better analysis because he watches them more. I know I am more educated about those teams than I am the Pacers, Clippers and Kings.

spectre

10-02-2009, 09:48 AM

Just like a lot of stat heads it's all about scoring. Even though he brings up that we 1) played .500 ball after the trade and 2) we upgraded our depth...supposedly that 2-4 points per game Mek averaged over TC is going to sink us.

In ONLY considering that 2-4 points, he and others totally overlook that Mek couldn't run the P&R worth a damn, that he played UNDER the rim (most blocked in the NBA) and he was hesitant to make any post moves. Mek also had trouble helping the guy driving by clearing out the paint...most of our guards that got blocked was due to the opposing C, Mek's man.

I'll hazard a guess that both Felton & DJ will "suddenly" become more proficient in the paint. People are quick to point out that Felton "sucks" on drives...well surprisingly DJ didn't do so well in that category either.

Since TC is an upgrade in each of those areas I think we'll easily make up those 2-4 points; in fact I think we'll score more (and more efficiently) with TC over Mek and that group who played .500 ball.

With better depth and a more versatile C who can actually play the role LB wants him to I think Hollinger's prediction of 29 wins is pretty darn laughable.

polarcat

10-02-2009, 10:05 AM

Couldn't agree with you more Specte. Most people that debate the TC vs Mek argument bring up the PPG stat and how inept Chandler is offensively. It's a difference of a few points per game... like 2-4 points. Honestly, 2-4 points versus all of the other attributes that Tyson brings to our team that Okafor didn't? Not trying to throw EO50 under a bus, but I'm pretty sure we've seen his ceiling. Okafor is a talented player, but a complimentary player that is too undersized for the 5, and not athletic enough to keep up with most 4's in the league. I think Chandler can put up similar offensive numbers in this system and with the cast of players we have. Damn.....I cannot wait for the season to start already!!

Walt Cronkite

10-02-2009, 11:11 AM

According to the Hollinger rating system, probably nothing. This was the comment I was talking about:

The assumption here is that if you have a second round pick as a rotation player, you must be sorely thin. However, as another stated, San Antonio will more than likely use Blair. Does he think that San Antonio is that thin?

I'm all for evidence and analysis. However, Hollinger's whole view of the sport seems to be based on algorithms with zero view of flow, team identity, character, or anything else. He's great to use for a different perspective on the players, one that seeks to be as unbiased as possible, which is great. However, an algorithm doesn't explain the whole story, and I don't think Hollinger is especially interested in filling in the gaps.

...what is inaccurate about that statement, either? Is there anyone on the board that disagrees that we have a frugal owner or that we've made all sorts of mistakes in the draft? Do we have depth at PF? Doesn't the lack of depth mean that we are sorely thin there?

I know Brown is our guy, but we're seriously putting a lot of weight on his shoulders if we don't bring in another pf. He's a rookie, he's a tweener and he's a second rounder. 2nd rounders don't have a very high success rate. That said, I know Brown rated out pretty highly on Hollinger's draft rater, but what does that guy know, he's just a robot who doesn't watch the games.

You realize that in the Hollinger preview for the past two seasons his "algorithms with zero view of flow, team identity, character, or anything else" have predicted playoffs for the Bobcats? He rags on Sean May because he knows how much he screwed us over. He wrote a special article close to the end of last season about how no one was talking about the Bobcats, but Larry Brown made them the most likely of the qualified teams to make a push to capture the 8th seed, talking about how good we had been since the Jrich trade.

Hollinger is the ONLY guy on ESPN that gives us any respect. 29 wins is quite low, so you can bet that when we surpass that total he writes an article about it where he talks about all of the things we're awesome at, how Bell's effect on the team is more than anything you could see from a box score and that Boris Diaw and Gerald Wallace are one of the most unique, but effective 1-2 forward punches in the league.

The guy is a Hawks fan living in Atlanta for heaven's sake, so don't act like he's some fairweather Laker/Celtic fan or superstar du jour's jockrider.

Walt Cronkite

10-02-2009, 11:16 AM

I use that as a default response only when it is appropriate. Do you really think Hollinger watches Bobcats games? If he watched them as much as I (and most on this forum) do, he would be a little better educated about them. I feel like there is far better analysis on the team on this forum.

Now if you are talking about the Lakers, Spurs, Celtics or Cavaliers, I bet he has better analysis because he watches them more. I know I am more educated about those teams than I am the Pacers, Clippers and Kings.

Asking anyone who's responsibility is to cover 30 sports franchises if they watch as many games as the members of the diehard fan's forum isn't a high order or anything. There is some great analysis of the team on this forum and on realgm, the negative of seeing soo many bobcat games is that it creates nonlogical emotional attachments and typically means that you don't see to many l33t teams besides when they play against the team you homer out for. You know why the analysis is better for the Lakers, Spurs, Celtics and Cavs? Because everyone watched them in the playoffs...

spectre

10-02-2009, 11:47 AM

I disagree that we have a frugal owner. The guy's spent over the cap for the last couple of years and in this one we're within 1 million of the luxury tax for a team that has yet to make the playoffs.

At this point I wouldn't be spending 80 million on salary either.

He wrote a special article close to the end of last season about how no one was talking about the Bobcats, but Larry Brown made them the most likely of the qualified teams to make a push to capture the 8th seed, talking about how good we had been since the Jrich trade.So what's changed from what would make us an 8th seed last year (39 wins) to 29 this year? I know he points at the Mek/TC swap, but I covered that in my last post. I don't think he mentioned our upgrade on the bench in this article (other than that snippet about Flip possibly not getting enough PT because of the loaded back court)...but didn't he say elsewhere that we did go from "poor" to "mediocre"?

Isn't that still an upgrade?

I don't think he's clueless, but as others have said I don't think he looks at the big picture (TC/Mek...all he sees are those few points as the prime example).

Walt Cronkite

10-02-2009, 11:52 AM

spectre

10-02-2009, 12:41 PM

I have to go to an apt, but when I return I'll further explain to you why the numbers have our record dropping. It's pretty obvious though. Chandler had a bad year, we're possibly playing two guys who are bit ?s in PER, we had a couple of players with awful pers (Mohammed, Ajinca) and other teams have improved.

It'd be much appreciated.

Up front though I think it's kind of foolish to base the upgrade/downgrade on the Mek/TC swap because of one injury plagued year.

And I'm not going to concede that startring out before the draft we were borderline .500; all we lacked was depth.

BigE

10-02-2009, 02:37 PM

millst2

10-02-2009, 03:00 PM

Well I agree also that they may have watched a pair of games each but that doesn't make them all knowing gurus on everything bobcats.

29 wins is a slap in the face. And even more ironically is that they have tried to trade Chandler before but due to his big to being sprained they didn't get it done. And now Okafor is the one who is missing practice and possibly preseason due to the same injury.

Chandler had a bad year that was injury riddled. So did Arenas, Tony parker, Tim Duncan and a whole list of others. I also say we will win 40 games if we stay healthy and the team in its current lineup can mesh as well as we hope.

The thought that strikes me is that we lose 4 points a game in scoring by taking on TC, we lost a lot of our games by 5 or less points. But we did add UPS, Henderson and Flip. And I would think that even with TC scoring a little less that this will make up TC's scoring plus add another 8 points a game over last yrs roster.

I hate the whole Insider bullshit, as they spew BS the majority of the time and are totally biased on smaller market teams all of which aren't named the spurs.

Walt Cronkite

10-02-2009, 03:54 PM

It'd be much appreciated.

Up front though I think it's kind of foolish to base the upgrade/downgrade on the Mek/TC swap because of one injury plagued year.

And I'm not going to concede that startring out before the draft we were borderline .500; all we lacked was depth.

Okay, after rereading and going back to see what he wrote in an earlier preview, here's my take.

First, I don't think it is John Hollinger's prediction that the cats go 29-53, but rather John Hollinger's metric program. Guy is too smart to just throw out numbers based on such limited information at this point. Also -7 is a pretty big drop, considering we made a lot of lateral moves and improved our depth. Anyway, I imagine the computer sees:

Chandler's gp/injury concerns and it has to take into account his season last year where his numbers reverted closer to their norm, outside of orr or drr which dropped below average. A bot sees that as a huge red flag. Especially considering that Diop is bad at offense and Mohammed/Ajinca were really awful last year.

I'm not sure what's plugged in for rookies, but I imagine until they do something it's left blank. So outside of our starters, the computer sees only two guys that are around NBA replacement level (DJ and Flip), so it has to operate on the assumption that for a lot of minutes, we're going to have players on the court that shouldn't be out there.

Offensively, we look really, really terrible. The Chandler swap and the possibility of Mohammed/Ajinca or a total unknown (Brown) have to create a really low offensive ranking in the system... like hollinger mentions, no team averaged less than 93 ppg last year and the computer sees the current roster construction as a high 70s ppg scoring team.

I don't put much value into Hollinger's team previews. I love his player predictions and tracking PER/ his power rankings once the season is under way... but there are just soo many holes in the programming because it's just cold, hard statistical implementation. If Hollinger added more of his personal feel-o-meter by doing things like slotting us in as the 5th best defense and giving someone a boost based on us being more double digits less than last year's worst team ppg, we'd probably be closer to a prediction similar to what we did last year. He doesn't do that though, because it's an examination of numbers.

I know a lot of people didn't get the opportunity to read the whole article b/c it's an insider exclusive, but there are lots of caveats. All of the previews are basically the same though: This is what team X did last year, will it continue? What will the addition of player Y mean? Can trend Z change? It's an elaborated version of his tier rankings where he said Cleveland, Orlando, Boston were at the top, Atlanta and some others in tier 2, NJ and someone else in the very bottom, a few teams that mixed things up a lot (Detroit/Toronto) and everyone else that is too difficult to predict right now.

spectre

10-02-2009, 04:03 PM

Good post Walt. I think that's exactly what's going on.

Thanks for the detailed answer.

BTW...if you think Hollinger's computer program thinks we'll be bad get a load of this:

Charlotte Bobcats 2009 NBA Basketball Future Lines (http://www.capperspicks.com/blog/nba/2009-bobcats-season-win-total-odds-predictions-21009/)

Win total projection for 2009-10— 25

teej

10-02-2009, 04:42 PM

^What's the Vegas line on the Bobcats?

dnbman

10-02-2009, 07:00 PM

I don't put much value into Hollinger's team previews. I love his player predictions and tracking PER/ his power rankings once the season is under way... but there are just soo many holes in the programming because it's just cold, hard statistical implementation. If Hollinger added more of his personal feel-o-meter by doing things like slotting us in as the 5th best defense and giving someone a boost based on us being more double digits less than last year's worst team ppg, we'd probably be closer to a prediction similar to what we did last year. He doesn't do that though, because it's an examination of numbers.

That's basically exactly what I was saying. But an examination of numbers is a complete abstraction without looking at context, which is what frustrates me.

Again, I think PER is interesting and shows a lot of insight. I just don't think it lends itself well to team analysis. As for the specific points you mentioned, I think Spectre addressed them.

dnbman

10-02-2009, 07:02 PM

Walt Cronkite

10-02-2009, 09:12 PM

That's basically exactly what I was saying. But an examination of numbers is a complete abstraction without looking at context, which is what frustrates me.

Again, I think PER is interesting and shows a lot of insight. I just don't think it lends itself well to team analysis. As for the specific points you mentioned, I think Spectre addressed them.

That is not at all what you were writing. You specifically sited his comment on playing a 2nd rounder heavy minutes as a reason for why it was justified to imply that he doesn't watch the games. You even claimed that Hollinger's "whole view of the sport seems to be based on algorithms with zero view of flow, team identity, character, or anything else".

Hollinger writes articles and articles explaining how PER (or any ABPRmetric) are only tools for better understanding the the game, but he's constantly attacked whenever someone is affronted by one of his opinions and quickly downgraded to some nerd who doesn't watch the games and only sits around crunching numbers. Guy goes above and beyond what should be asked of him to prove that he loves the sport and does, in fact, actually watch the games.

To assume that the man crunches numbers without doing analytical work to put them into context is absolutely incorrect and I cannot let you off the hook with a "Yea, that's, like, exactly what I'm sayin!" comment.

teej

10-02-2009, 09:32 PM

Walt, how many 'Cats games do you think Hollinger watched last year?

While he may do analytical work to put his numbers into context, there is a reason he works for ESPN and not some team. It's because his numbers aren't that effective in measuring players and/or teams. Daryl Morey, on one of his podcasts with Bill Simmons, was asked to compare the amount of statistics the Rockets counted and used compared to ESPN. His answer: "More than you can imagine." The NBA teams measure defense by team and player so far in-depth Hollinger is irrelevant. They haven't quite got it down to the science baseball has, but they're getting pretty damn close.

dnbman

10-02-2009, 10:50 PM

That is not at all what you were writing. You specifically sited his comment on playing a 2nd rounder heavy minutes as a reason for why it was justified to imply that he doesn't watch the games. You even claimed that Hollinger's "whole view of the sport seems to be based on algorithms with zero view of flow, team identity, character, or anything else".

Hollinger writes articles and articles explaining how PER (or any ABPRmetric) are only tools for better understanding the the game, but he's constantly attacked whenever someone is affronted by one of his opinions and quickly downgraded to some nerd who doesn't watch the games and only sits around crunching numbers. Guy goes above and beyond what should be asked of him to prove that he loves the sport and does, in fact, actually watch the games.

To assume that the man crunches numbers without doing analytical work to put them into context is absolutely incorrect and I cannot let you off the hook with a "Yea, that's, like, exactly what I'm sayin!" comment.

I'm not too concerned about you letting me off the hook. I never made a comment about him not watching games. You're connecting other people's posts to my ideas.

As for the work he does to put the numbers into context, I have no idea of knowing what he does, watches or anything else. However, based on what he writes, I think he's missing a lot of points that others have mentioned, which is why I stand by comment that his analysis seems to be based on algorithms. I'm not questioning his love for the game or rather he has a soul or anything like that. I just question the reasons for his claims.

Walt Cronkite

10-03-2009, 12:22 AM

Kevin Pritchard and SVG have both given Hollinger recent props...

ziggy

10-03-2009, 08:00 AM

We need to have a site wide buy in for the over on 25 wins; that's a no-brainer.

Let's put some 22s on this piece!

We were better than 25 wins with a short bus riding lamebrain as a coach. If they are taking bets that we won't get 25 wins, sign me up. That's easy money

teej

10-03-2009, 12:47 PM

Kevin Pritchard and SVG have both given Hollinger recent props...

And notice how much coverage their respective teams get in a good light.

Not only did you not address my points, but you still haven't answered my direct question: How many Bobcat games do you think Hollinger watched last year?

BRNC

10-03-2009, 02:24 PM

Hollinger (like all other "analyst") is making a guess based on the pure stat data he uses...in many ways better than "my gut says" but not much...having the core together from the preseason will help...a solid draft will help...better 8-whatever will help...the thing is we do not know (and neither do the analyst) how much (if any or) all these things translate to team play and wins...IMO we win at least as many as last year and barring major injuries more (5-6) from a better balanced schedule....I know some teams in the East helped themselves (slight to big) but again...how do the changes they've made translate to their teams and to wins...no one knows and at this point (IMO) it is best guess...my best guess (again barring major injuries) is 42-44 wins...

Walt Cronkite

10-04-2009, 01:13 AM

And notice how much coverage their respective teams get in a good light.

Not only did you not address my points, but you still haven't answered my direct question: How many Bobcat games do you think Hollinger watched last year?

I've been out of town. It's impossible to tell. He's a Hawks fan, they're in our division...4? What are your other points, that Daryl Morey, a guy in charge of an entire franchise, has more resources to come up with more advanced data manipulation than the guy that originally posted for free on allyoop.com? K...

teej

10-04-2009, 01:20 AM

I've been out of town. It's impossible to tell. He's a Hawks fan, they're in our division...4? What are your other points, that Daryl Morey, a guy in charge of an entire franchise, has more resources to come up with more advanced data manipulation than the guy that originally posted for free on allyoop.com? K...

4 isn't a whole lot to judge a team on...

My point is that despite not being smart enough to be picked up by an NBA team, John Hollinger is given credibilty when he doesn't count in two very important factors, teamwork and emotion. And very poorly counts coaching.

I don't count much of what any analyst predicts unless they follow a team closely. I trust his analysis of the Hawks, Lakers, Cavs, Celtics, Magic, and maybe Spurs and Mavs. That's about it. And his predictions for none.

Walt Cronkite

10-04-2009, 01:22 AM

Any because I alluded to it before abandoning this thread:

SVG: I think, a guy like John Hollinger [of ESPN.com] has been on the cutting edge of that and I read John's stuff as much as I possibly can because I think he's a guy that's studied it and knows what he's doing and his numbers make a lot of sense. I follow those things. Some of them make more sense to me than others and so, I'll latch on to them and others I'll let go but yeah, I think it's important trying to learn more and more about what we do.

Kevin Pritchard snip: When asked about his team's offensive efficiency, Kevin Pritchard smiled and pointed at ESPN's John Hollinger, stating that Hollinger was "the expert in the world" when it came to efficiency.

Before you dismiss Stan Van, realize only two coaches have made it to 200 wins faster than he has (Phil Jackson and Pat Riley)

Also... why mention the amount of coverage their franchises get in a good light? PDX and Orlando are both waaaay better than us... good teams get coverage, it's not some media conspiracy.

Walt Cronkite

10-04-2009, 01:25 AM

4 isn't a whole lot to judge a team on...

My point is that despite not being smart enough to be picked up by an NBA team, John Hollinger is given credibilty when he doesn't count in two very important factors, teamwork and emotion. And very poorly counts coaching.

I don't count much of what any analyst predicts unless they follow a team closely. I trust his analysis of the Hawks, Lakers, Cavs, Celtics, Magic, and maybe Spurs and Mavs. That's about it. And his predictions for none.

I've already explained the model that spit out this low prediction. It's not John Hollinger's opinion, the program spits out a prediction based on statistics and he writes about it, adding caveats and trends to watch for...

Walt Cronkite

10-04-2009, 01:27 AM

teej

10-04-2009, 06:32 PM

Your acting like he's Marc Stein, for christs sake, who goes by nothing but his feel-o-meter. John Hollinger is one of the few major media columnists that gives us any type of fair shake, ever, but you're insulting his intelligence because you disagree with a computer's prediction...

It's not that I disagree with a computer's prediction, rather that I disagree that a computer has the ability to predict.

If Hollinger was really that good, he would have been picked up by SVG or Pritchard to work in their FO. Trust me, they pay wayyyyy more than ESPN. I don't dispute that he gives a fair shake, I just don't think his system is at all a workable system, which is why he gets paid to write, not use his stats.

Walt Cronkite

10-05-2009, 09:45 AM

We agree on your first point. Personally, I think the preseason prediction would be more relevant if Hollinger tampered with the model in order to add things he thought were likely to happen and gave them some numeric value, but that would be an inherently anti-Hollinger thing to do.

Your second point is not as good. You have no way of knowing what Hollinger, Dean Oliver or Sachin Gupta make for their respective positions. Hollinger's second skill besides mathematics is writing. He wants for basketball statistical analysis to get to the level of baseball and knows it's not going to get there from everyone working behind the scenes.

Look, Bill James is a god in the advanced statistics world. He began doing what he does in 77, went on to revolutionize the way fans look at his sport, but didn't get a job in baseball until 2003, when the new owner of the Red Sox (a former reader) hired him to be a Senior Advisor on Baseball Operations. Just because you create metrics doesn't mean a team has to pay you to use them. So much of the work is public knowledge published at think tanks like abprmetrics, all a team has to do is hire people to track any stats that are missing and a guy that knows how to add them into a computer model. Watching games and counting the number of times Shane Battier knocks a ball loose on a shot attempt but doesn't block it is beneath John Hollinger.

teej

10-05-2009, 10:15 AM

Your second point is not as good. You have no way of knowing what Hollinger, Dean Oliver or Sachin Gupta make for their respective positions.

Probably no more than 100k a year. They'd get more than that to make new stats and quantify them for a team if they were really worth it.

Look, Bill James is a god in the advanced statistics world. He began doing what he does in 77, went on to revolutionize the way fans look at his sport, but didn't get a job in baseball until 2003, when the new owner of the Red Sox (a former reader) hired him to be a Senior Advisor on Baseball Operations. Just because you create metrics doesn't mean a team has to pay you to use them. So much of the work is public knowledge published at think tanks like abprmetrics, all a team has to do is hire people to track any stats that are missing and a guy that knows how to add them into a computer model. Watching games and counting the number of times Shane Battier knocks a ball loose on a shot attempt but doesn't block it is beneath John Hollinger.

Yes, but Billy Beane was using Bill James stuff back in the early 90's (IDK if he was paid or not), and Earl Weaver was using statistical models for his lineups, pitchers, and pinch hitters before Bill James even started. And it was more Theo's idea to hire James than John Henry.

Walt Cronkite

10-05-2009, 10:29 AM

...Hollinger, Dean and Gupta are 3 guys with 3 different positions and you think they all make ~100k? Why bring up how Hollinger doesn't have an NBA job as a question of his merits then?

You're basically making my argument for me with your second blurb. Beane was using the work of James in the 90s (20 years after James started it), but was unlikely paying him and definitely didn't have him in his FO. Epstein is a Sabremetrics supporter too from what I've read (I've never been into baseball). A baseball manager was tracking numbers before James, so what? Frank McGuire is the first basketball coach believed to track possessions and he started coaching more than 20 years before Hollinger was even born...

teej

10-05-2009, 10:42 AM

...Hollinger, Dean and Gupta are 3 guys with 3 different positions and you think they all make ~100k? Why bring up how Hollinger doesn't have an NBA job as a question of his merits then?
I'm just talking about Hollinger. I have no clue who the other two are. My B.

You're basically making my argument for me with your second blurb. Beane was using the work of James in the 90s (20 years after James started it), but was unlikely paying him and definitely didn't have him in his FO. Epstein is a Sabremetrics supporter too from what I've read (I've never been into baseball). A baseball manager was tracking numbers before James, so what? Frank McGuire is the first basketball coach believed to track possessions and he started coaching more than 20 years before Hollinger was even born...

Yea, Theo loves him some Vorp and Pecota.

My point is Earl had all that stuff befor James even got into it, he just didn'torganize it the way James did. He wasn't just tracking stats, he was creating new stats, using them in the way he ran his team, and keeping track of them over ten plus years of managing. He's the real stat geek. Not James.

Walt Cronkite

10-05-2009, 12:44 PM

What Bill James did is more than organize the notebooks of stats that Earl Weaver tracked. Earl Weaver knew how to use his roster and could but a crappy hitter in a unique lineup spot against a good pitcher because he had data that would show how his guy did against him. What Bill James did is what allowed Billy Beane to create cost-effective teams of winners. Surely you can see the difference here... one is the meticulous observation of trends related to things you're personally responsible, the other builds value for players based on things like secondary average (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_Average)

I figured you knew who Sachin Gupta was since you referenced the Rockets statistical observation. You tried to downplay Hollinger's credibility by saying he didn't have a front office job, so I cited Gupta so you could see what it takes to be an analyst of statistics and get paid by an NBA front office. You can read more here: http://www.nba.com/rockets/news/Letrsquos_Make_A_Deal-285317-34.html

Dean Oliver is also worth knowing about. He wrote a fantastic book (Basketball On Paper) and made history in 04 by being the first statistician hired full time by an NBA team(TFKAS). He now works for the Nuggets.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if Gupta, Oliver and Hollinger all made around the same amount of money, since they do vastly different things despite all working with stats. This is important because you challenged Hollinger's credibility by noting that he doesn't work for a single NBA team, only the worldwide leader in sports (where he doesn't get waaaaay more publicity than Oliver or Gupta or anything, which couldn't possibly lead to dividends in the future...)

teej

10-05-2009, 01:46 PM

What Bill James did is more than organize the notebooks of stats that Earl Weaver tracked. Earl Weaver knew how to use his roster and could but a crappy hitter in a unique lineup spot against a good pitcher because he had data that would show how his guy did against him. What Bill James did is what allowed Billy Beane to create cost-effective teams of winners. Surely you can see the difference here... one is the meticulous observation of trends related to things you're personally responsible, the other builds value for players based on things like secondary average (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_Average) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_Average) [/quote)

I know all the different stats, trust me, one of my hobbies is a game called Baseball Mogul, which is an advanced concept of what James does. And really, Earl Weaver made up some stats similar to the secondary average you show. Not nearly as complex as the Vorp or Pecota that James or the prospectus guys use, but compared to his time (60's and 70's) they were just as complex. And that was without computers.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if Gupta, Oliver and Hollinger all made around the same amount of money, since they do vastly different things despite all working with stats. This is important because you challenged Hollinger's credibility by noting that he doesn't work for a single NBA team, only the worldwide leader in sports (where he doesn't get waaaaay more publicity than Oliver or Gupta or anything, which couldn't possibly lead to dividends in the future...)

Thanks for the info on those guys.

You're a smart guy Walt, so I know you can understand this. Here's how I know Gupta and Oliver make more money than Hollinger: money drives what job you take for nearly everyone in this country, and around the world. Notice that Gupta LEFT ESPN to work for the Rockets. I can promise you he is getting a bigger check now than he did at ESPN. ESPN's highest paid basketball writer is J.A. Adande, and he also does Around the Horn and Los Angeles Times writing. I still don't think he clears 500k. I'll bet you the asst. GM in Houston gets more than that.

And as far as credibilty, well, if you aren't working in an NBA front office, my personal feeling is you aren't that credible. Hollinger could still write, just for whatever team he worked for, with an occasional op-ed. But he isn't that good. JMHO.

Walt Cronkite

10-05-2009, 02:06 PM

teej

10-05-2009, 02:27 PM

Gupta's responsibilities changed when he moved from ESPN to Houston, no doubt his pay increased. When he was working for ESPN, he was not making as much as Hollinger though... he was a tech guy, probably hired as a contractor, to write the code for the trade machine. He has a better job now that HAS to be more fun (Morey values his opinion on players, that's awesome), so yea, he makes more, he has more career possibilities.

You still have no idea what he makes, same for Dean Oliver, same for John Hollinger.

I don't know idividual numbers, no. But ESPN's average staff writer salry is 35k. Hollinger makes more than that, and Oliver and Gupta both make more than Hollinger, I'd bet anyone. The NBA pays better than an online sports website.

Walt Cronkite

10-05-2009, 02:43 PM

I'm sure there's not a huge range in that average or anything...

teej

10-05-2009, 03:08 PM

I'm sure there's not a huge range in that average or anything...

Oh there is, but the two highest are Reilly at 2 mil and Simmons at 1 mil, and I know the top 10.

But would you not agree that the NBA pays more than ESPN?

Walt Cronkite

10-05-2009, 03:54 PM

teej

10-05-2009, 04:04 PM

Just like you, I have absolutely no idea what a Basketball Technology Director or Director of Quantitative Analysis make...

Hollinger is ALL OVER ESPN'S NBA page. They have him writing daily articles during the season and the majority of his writing is exclusive to insider. He's frequently involved in Podcasts, shown on television, everything. Guy is getting paid more than the average salary...

Ergh. They did a thing of the Top 10 salaries for ESPN writers (counting their other work, which Hollinger has none), and the 10th was right at 150k. Stephen A. Smith wasn't even clearing 150k from ESPN when he left. I'm putting Hollinger at 75k-100k and that might even be high. I'd say Gupta is over 100k. Easily. He has Hollinger beat.

If it comes down to a job at ESPN versus an NBA/MLB/NFL/NHL team, the team WILL pay more. Trust me. I know we disagree, but you're smart enough to know this.

Walt Cronkite

10-05-2009, 05:44 PM

This is stupid. Your main objective seems to be getting me to admit that Hollinger doesn't watch enough Bobcat games and therefore his analysis is irrelevant. Neither of us have any way of knowing how many games he has seen, but if he's anything like me, he catches all of the nationally televised games and in between is watching a game on league pass on television while having a couple open on league pass broadband, but probably stops paying as much attention to other teams once Hawks games begin... until the 4th quarter, where half of each night's games because really interesting again.

The reason this is stupid is because I don't think his statistical analysis is contingent on viewing the games and you are on the polar end of that belief, wherein his stats are completely useless unless he watches the games. There is a fundamental rift there. I watch the games because I love the sport, view box scores to see who is having a traditional effect on each game (paying special attention to +/-) and then seek out advanced statistics to better understand what I saw and what to look for in the future.

At some point, you brought up that Daryl Morey and the Rockets track and analyze more statistics than Bill Simmons can imagine. I think Bill Simmons is a moron, so color me unimpressed. Here is a WAY BETTER article that discusses some of what the Rockets do (written by the arthur of Moneyball, we're coming full circle): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html

Anyway, you brought up Morey to try and discredit Hollinger by showing that a real number crunching GM analyzes more than just PER. What you seem to be failing to realize is this: John Hollinger was one of the founding minds of APBRmetrics. He created PER and it really caught on because it took more into account that +/- or adjusted +/- and no rater created since has done a significant job of besting his model. Here's the thing though, he didn't just decide, "Okay, I made PER, now I'm done". He's an NBA basketball fan. He's a numbers fan. He wants a deeper understanding of the game and is involved in an evolving community of like minded people in order to try and achieve an ever increasing level of enlightenment. He has more to offer in his analysis than what PER alone is capable of, that's why it's important to actually read his articles. People get pissed when they see his number reports and their team or favorite player is misrepresented and he's quickly labeled a moron. The irony, of course, is that he's typically addressing the intricacies in his writings, but his opponents have already dismissed him based on an emotional response, so they've missed the opportunity to better understand something else.

I guess I shouldn't have mentioned that Stan Van Gundy and Kevin Pritchard, two guys involved with successful franchises but in pretty different capacities, are proponents of Hollinger. It opened the door for you to argue that if he was worth anything he'd have a job in the NBA. I noted that Bill James, the guy credited with Sabremetrics, didn't get a job in baseball until 25 years after he began his work. I thought that this would show that there isn't a discernible correlation between job and the influence an advanced statistic sports writer can have in his field, but have failed because we have been arguing about salaries off and on all day.

I think this is another philosophical difference between us. On your end, you question Hollinger's intelligence or ability since he is working for ESPN instead of an NBA franchise. On my end, I think Hollinger likes working for ESPN because he's a well represented/ sometimes respected personality that wouldn't get to do some of the things he does if he were locked into a franchise. I think he likes having a massive readership, I think he likes hosting chats and appearing regularly on podcasts and geting tv time... Gupta and Oliver, for however much they get paid, don't get to do those things. Furthermore, from a gm perspective, I think it's a case of "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" Hollinger is constantly tweaking PER and coming out with new raters (draft rater changes drastically each year), power rankings, etc. Whatever ESPN pays him, it's a lot more than it costs to hire a statistician or two and have them stay on top of what's going on in the field of APBRmetrics while paying special attention to a number of metrics that the gm/coach/scout/whoever puts stock in. I'm sure you'll argue this last point, but consider that ESPN pays Hollinger year round... you can hire an unpaid intern to keep track of some stat that 82games doesn't cover and keep plugging it in to your preexisting database.

teej

10-05-2009, 06:02 PM

The reason this is stupid is because I don't think his statistical analysis is contingent on viewing the games and you are on the polar end of that belief, wherein his stats are completely useless unless he watches the games. There is a fundamental rift there. I watch the games because I love the sport, view box scores to see who is having a traditional effect on each game (paying special attention to +/-) and then seek out advanced statistics to better understand what I saw and what to look for in the future.

No, my point is that anyone who follows basketball knows that his stats (and any stats, for that matter) can't quantify the hustle, outplaying the other man, and other things that baseball doesn't have. Baseball doesn't have matchups, it has a batter and a pitcher, and sometimes defense. No one touches anyone. You don't have to go up against anyone (except plays at the plate). The only thing baseball can't quantify is how a catcher handles a staff. Basketball, on the other hand, has lots of things that can't be quantified. Like coaching, effort (Vince Carter), matchups, etc. You can't use stats to predict or analyze a game. Only following a team for an extended time lets you do that. That's why no one can ever predict the NFL, or the NBA.

Anyway, you brought up Morey to try and discredit Hollinger by showing that a real number crunching GM analyzes more than just PER. What you seem to be failing to realize is this: John Hollinger was one of the founding minds of APBRmetrics. He created PER and it really caught on because it took more into account that +/- or adjusted +/- and no rater created since has done a significant job of besting his model.
Yes they have. However, they can't tell us about it because they don't work for ESPN.

I guess I shouldn't have mentioned that Stan Van Gundy and Kevin Pritchard, two guys involved with successful franchises but in pretty different capacities, are proponents of Hollinger. It opened the door for you to argue that if he was worth anything he'd have a job in the NBA. I noted that Bill James, the guy credited with Sabremetrics, didn't get a job in baseball until 25 years after he began his work. I thought that this would show that there isn't a discernible correlation between job and influence an advanced statistic sports writer can have in his field, but have failed because we have been arguing about salaries off and on all day.
My only point about the salaries was if he had an offer from an NBA team, he would have taken it. Which means SVG and Pritchard aren't THAT big of proponents. Because they likely have wayyy mor advanced stats already.

Walt Cronkite

10-05-2009, 07:22 PM

teej

10-05-2009, 07:37 PM

No teej... your point has been that he doesn't watch the games and shouldn't be given credit as an analyst of professional basketball because of it. Go back and see what you've written here. The only reason this discussion is even ongoing is because you bumped this thread with a comment of "Not only did you not address my points, but you still haven't answered my direct question: How many Bobcat games do you think Hollinger watched last year?"

"Hustle, outplaying the other man, and other things that baseball doesn't have" are things you have to analyze contextually. FWIW, hustle/outplaying the other man does happen in baseball, that's the spirit of sports itself... making the big play when you have to and are on an empty tank/are too small/aren't athletic enough.

...you can definitely use statistics to analyze and predict things like coaching trends and matchups. You've heard about 5-man units? Team stats? The reason no one can predict sports... is because they're sports. Crazy shit happens. Statistics aren't rules of life, they are observations, probabilities and trends. The exact opposite can always happen.

Fine, better raters have been made. I agree with this. They aren't mainstream and their creators aren't going out of their way to explain them to everyone. You are definitely underrating the relevance of PER, though. I think it's a lost cause convincing you of that, but still. It's on every notable stat tracking site and supported by SVG and Pritchard for a reason.

Go read the edit I made that included a final paragraph. Money isn't everything, kiddo.

My point about Hollinger watching the games was I don't think a stat guy should do the previews/analysis for the NBA when he clearly only watches 5-6 teams on a semi-regular basis.

Those "things you analyze contextually" are only valid IF you follow a team on a consistent basis to have an understanding for what is happening.

The better raters I was reffering to are the ones people like Gupta and Oliver have made and aren't allowed to talk about, but are paid handsomely for. They'll come out in a few years, when someone gets fired or retires, but by that time, they'll have already been replaced by a new one.

I read that paragraph, and I'm afraid we just have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of man. But if he worked for a team, he could still get in on that, just with his public stuff. Like what Morey does as a guest on Simmons podcast.

I understand your constant defense of Hollinger/stats, I do the same thing with my defense of Adam Carolla's intelligence. However, I think we both may be misguided. But, being the humans we are, we'll talk in defense of them til we're blue in the face (or fingers)

Walt Cronkite

10-05-2009, 08:15 PM

I just don't get why you think Hollinger doesn't watch basketball games. It's his job to watch games, he has all day to do it... he has to field questions from fans of all 30 teams and he is always on top of his events. I mean, I'm sure he has NBA LP... games are archived online even if he misses one.

What did he write that you can cite as any sort of proof that he does not watch enough Bobcats basketball? This is why I found it so bizarre you didn't mention any of the scouting reports. Besides noting that you didn't learn anything, you didn't quote anything from those sections that you disagreed about... you just implied that they were beneath you because you already knew everything that was stated within.

I know what better raters you're referring to, I introduced you to Oliver and Gupta. Just because there are better raters that no one is talking about doesn't mean it's not worth talking about the data we have available.

You've heard of an exclusivity clause? No one knows who Gupta is because he doesn't get to talk to anyone besides the people of Rockets.com, and Dean Oliver has been off of the map since 2004. From Hollinger's website:

My name is John Hollinger, and I created this site in 1996 to help transform the way we think about the NBA. I realized that by analyazing the numbers, we could glean insights that would never appear to us from watching the games, no matter how often or how intently we watched...

Now we're seeing basketball stats pop up in new and interesting places. The Sonics, for instance, hired a full-time stats guy, which never would have happened even five years ago. We're hearing more coaches and announces refer to concepts like "Offensive Efficiency," "Points per shot attempt" and the like. And of course, sites like 82games.com have done the work that the NBA should have been doing years ago, collecting missing data that is massively beneficial in analyzing the game.

Of course, basketball's stat revolution still lags well behind baseball's. We're still at the tip of the iceberg, so hopefully the next decade of Alleyoop.com will be as exciting as the past one. Thanks for joining me on the ride.

Sounds to me like a guy that, pay scales being relatively equal, would prefer the job that allows him to openly interact with communities.

teej

10-05-2009, 08:43 PM

I just don't get why you think Hollinger doesn't watch basketball games. It's his job to watch games, he has all day to do it... he has to field questions from fans of all 30 teams and he is always on top of his events. I mean, I'm sure he has NBA LP... games are archived online even if he misses one.

What did he write that you can cite as any sort of proof that he does not watch enough Bobcats basketball? This is why I found it so bizarre you didn't mention any of the scouting reports. Besides noting that you didn't learn anything, you didn't quote anything from those sections that you disagreed about... you just implied that they were beneath you because you already knew everything that was stated within.

His analysis on the TC-Okafor trade for one. When he slams it on ESPN, yet his own stats prove it helps the 'Cats, I just htink he doesn't understand the 'Cats. All those things I quoted, from DJ's assist issues (he mostly played with the second team, which couldn't shoot or score with any regularity), Nazr's "being out of shape", the TC trade being "puzzling" (Whether he likes it or not, he has to admit, especially with the work Brett did, that it makes sense), etc. I just don't get the feel he's watched much Bobcats basketball. He watches the big-market teams, and his Hawks. And maybe a playoff-implication game or two. But I'm sure his analysis of say, the Sacramento Kings is even worse.

I know what better raters you're referring to, I introduced you to Oliver and Gupta. Just because there are better raters that no one is talking about doesn't mean it's not worth talking about the data we have available.

You've heard of an exclusivity clause? No one knows who Gupta is because he doesn't get to talk to anyone besides the people of Rockets.com, and Dean Oliver has been off of the map since 2004. From Hollinger's website:

I'm talking about the data WE don't have, but teams do. I'm sure the Celtics, Cavs, Magic, Rockets, Blazers, Lakers, and others have raters you and I haven't heard of who make Hollinger's stats look measly and worthless. As for the exclusivity clause, that's because they're doing work that makes Hollinger irrelevant. But I guess we have to agree to disagree.

davcbow

10-06-2009, 12:36 AM

There are many of these so called experts that dont understand the cats so I dont listen to them or care what they think....:cool:

Ampsportsduo

10-06-2009, 01:33 AM

There are many of these so called experts that dont understand the cats so I dont listen to them or care what they think....:cool:

Agreed. I am a big fan of title's with no strings attached. I am an amateur surgeon, Fantasy sports expert, carnie, quality controller, swami, czar of the 360 and a Colonel.

teej

10-06-2009, 02:14 PM

Agreed. I am a big fan of title's with no strings attached. I am an amateur surgeon, Fantasy sports expert, carnie, quality controller, swami, czar of the 360 and a Colonel.

All carnie's are amateurs...

Ghost Kat

10-07-2009, 01:14 AM

All carnie's are amateurs...

Hey!!!! :paddle:

My mother's uncles sisters neighbor used to live next to a Carnie....For about three monthes a year. But I'm still offended!!!

Ghost Kat

10-07-2009, 01:18 AM

Agreed. I am a big fan of title's with no strings attached. I am an amateur surgeon, Fantasy sports expert, carnie, quality controller, swami, czar of the 360 and a Colonel.

Ok....

I know I'm country...But do ya'll pronounce Colonel like Kernal. That doesn't seem to be the same word.

:shrug:

teej

10-07-2009, 02:05 PM

Ok....

I know I'm country...But do ya'll pronounce Colonel like Kernal. That doesn't seem to be the same word.

:shrug:

Yes, we do. And carnie's don't have houses...they sleep at work :biggrin:

teej

02-25-2010, 04:04 PM

Anyway, you brought up Morey to try and discredit Hollinger by showing that a real number crunching GM analyzes more than just PER. What you seem to be failing to realize is this: John Hollinger was one of the founding minds of APBRmetrics. He created PER and it really caught on because it took more into account that +/- or adjusted +/- and no rater created since has done a significant job of besting his model.

At the risk of sounding like a huge douche:

Daryl Morey was on Simmons podcast the other day, was asked directly about the metrics and stats found online at sites like 82games or ESPN, and Morey said:

"We feel like the stuff that's out in the public domain is pretty hard to use...there's a lot of issues with what's out there in the public domain and we've done some things to improve it, to make it potentially useable, but it's pretty hard (to do)."

He also went on to say:

"With all the analysis in basketball, we feel like all it does is ask the right questions...if you feel like player x is a great player and stat x for him is horrible, you dive in and see why...you see why he looks bad not that he's bad or good."

Hollinger isn't so high and mighty now, is he? :biggrin:

Walt Cronkite

02-25-2010, 11:11 PM

*sigh* I obviously don't have access to private raters, no one does, so obviously I was only considering what is available in the public domain. Great success in showing your douche colors though.

Good thread though, makes me look pretty smart. That team from the preview was terrible. Anyway, since we're cherry picking quotes, here's one of your gems that I've been DYING to dig up. In response to someone disagreeing with Sweed stating that "Once the offense gets going I'd assume Mek's 14ish and 10ish won't be that hard to achieve":

Mek didn't create any of his points, so I don't think he's really reaching. TC has been working on a 17-footer in practice, and has been hitting it. TC already average a double double once in his career. And he's been solid on the glass already. No reason he can't get 12-14.

l to the o-l.
Wow Teej, how stupid was that? :rolleyes: I'm sure there's plenty of other ridiculous things I can find that you wrote in this Hollinger thread and the other one alone, but I won't, cause I'm classy.

teej

02-25-2010, 11:26 PM

*sigh* I obviously don't have access to private raters, no one does, so obviously I was only considering what is available in the public domain. Great success in showing your douche colors though.

Obviously? Perhaps my brain is duller than yours, but it wasn't to me :biggrin:

My only point is that Hollinger isn't the God of stats ESPN touts him to be.
he's just an overhyped geek.

Wow Teej, how stupid was that? :rolleyes: I'm sure there's plenty of other ridiculous things I can find that you wrote in this Hollinger thread and the other one alone, but I won't, cause I'm classy.

If he is fully healthy, I have no doubt he can averaged a dub-dub. He showed signs of it early on when he first got worked in, then he just started making excuses not to play. Like I did to try to say Mek wasn't a pure salary dump.

And I could pull up some stuff in the DJ-Ray debates, but I won't either. Ya know, because none of us are 100% accurate. ;)

Walt Cronkite

02-25-2010, 11:44 PM

This is revisionist debating, you're just doing it wrong. At the time, you got your panties all bunched when you saw how poorly Hollinger's computer model predicted the Bobcats would do. My explanation for what the estimation was missing (a blank for Mohammed, Brown and Henderson which meant the model was expecting Ajinca and Graham to play heavier minutes, for example, which would obviously hurt our odds of winning, since they are bad. I also think it was before we signed Flip) was fought off with ignorant assumptions that Hollinger was predicting an awful performance from our club in the 09-10 season because he didn't watch the Bobcats, so he must know nothing. THEN this thread continued to devolve into how Hollinger's metric doesn't measure up to the ones used by NBA teams that have advanced statistic departments that track specific stats... like that isn't obvious. PER is the best public metric around and it did an excellent job of projecting how terrible our team was pre-Jackson... but let's conveniently omit that point.

Chandler is terrible. The guy hasn't been mentally injured all year, but he's had games where he's been fine physically and he's bad at offense. He would be able to score 12-14 points in a game here or there, but he would never average that for a season. You didn't suggest he would "average a dub-dub", you saw no reason that he couldn't average 12-14 points a game based on how comparable his offense was to Okafor's.

Not sure what DJ-Ray debates you're referring to.

SWedd523

02-25-2010, 11:56 PM

teej

02-26-2010, 12:09 AM

I do apologize for not explaining why I dug up this thread.

THEN this thread continued to devolve into how Hollinger's metric doesn't measure up to the ones used by NBA teams that have advanced statistic departments that track specific stats

I only picked this thread to post in because it was the one with the most info on Morey. I searched just my posts for the words "Walt" and "Hollinger" and four or five threads came up that I could've posted in. I don't like Hollinger's stats, as I've made clear, and this was the quickest avenue for me to disprove your "he's just as good as the NBA" theory. I didn't want to start a new thread, but it seems that you would've liked that better. My apologies.

Chandler is terrible. The guy hasn't been mentally injured all year, but he's had games where he's been fine physically and he's bad at offense. He would be able to score 12-14 points in a game here or there, but he would never average that for a season. You didn't suggest he would "average a dub-dub", you saw no reason that he couldn't average 12-14 points a game based on how comparable his offense was to Okafor's.

Ok. Last season for us, Mek played 33 mpg, and put up 13/10. His per36 was 14.5/11. Solid numbers. This season, Nazr (who EVERYONE would agree is not as talented) is playing 17 mpg, and putting up 8/5. His per36 is 17/11. Tyson, in 28 games, has played 24 mpg and posted 6/6. His per36 is 9/10. That's including the games he came back and played "hurt."

Now, please tell me how 12/14 when he's totally healthy is unreachable in Mek's minutes? A double double when healthy is almost a lock.

And if possible, how Nazzy is making Mek look weak.

Not sure what DJ-Ray debates you're referring to.

Where you agreed with Hollinger that DJ was the future :facepalm:. Nearly everyone outside of Spectre and Felton for Prez did. I don't even remember what I said, other than Ray was a starting point guard (I re-read that today).

Walt Cronkite

02-26-2010, 12:13 AM

I don't know if I understand the need to "cherry pick" on my previous statements if you're trying to make a point to teej. Especially since I haven't been in this discussion between the two of you. So much for classy? I guess you also missed the part in elementary school where we were taught that calling another person "names" like "stupid" isn't a very "classy" thing to do.

Furthermore, if you have mind enough to take the time go review comments from months ago, I wold expect you to take the time to spell my name correctly. It's SWedd, not Sweed.

Now that I was brought into this little spat (that always seems to rash up between the two of you), I'll reaffirm my previous statement. Had Tyson been healthy for the entire year, I have full confidence that numbers approaching 14/10 would have been within reason.

His game log showed improvement by the game: 0/6, 6/8, 8/7, 8/8, 10/10, 13/7, before dipping back down. Not totally sure if that coincided with his injury flaring up, but for what it was worth, he showed the ability to at least average a double double.

Sorry for getting your name wrong, was just bringing the quote up because I thought it was pretty silly that you and Teejer thought Chandler would easily average a double double standing in for Okafor because he did it once previously in his career. Nothing personal, it's just seriously been something I've been waiting for but not bringing up, but once Teej bumped a dead thread I thought it was fair game. For the record, I didn't call Teej "stupid", I asked how stupid it looked for Teej to say there was "no reason Chandler can't get 12-14" ppg knowing what everyone knows in hindsight.

Anyway, in regard to your recent affirmation of your beliefs: "Had Tyson been healthy for the entire year" is a gigantic caveat. We're talking about a guy that his team tried to dump for expiring contracts until the OKC doctors looked at him and rejected him medically. I'll again note that there is a difference between averaging a double double and replicating Okafor's production, which was the original context of the quote in question.

teej

02-26-2010, 12:16 AM

Yeah, Steven, I didn't take it as calling me stupid. And I already pointed out it wasn't stupid anyway...

Walt, there are lots of caveats. What if Mek played 100% every game?

BRNC

02-26-2010, 12:17 AM

teej...there were a "few" more than "Felton" and spectre on the Ray side of that debate...regardless...we've all pretty much made not-to-bright predictions or been on the incorrect side of a debate...I mean...at this point I'm feeling kinda foolish for thinking the 'Cats would get the fifth seed this year...:p

teej

02-26-2010, 12:19 AM

teej...there were a "few" more than "Felton" and spectre on the Ray side of that debate

I know, I'm assuming you're one of them, but I did say "nearly" everyone, not everyone :biggrin:

Spectre is just Ray's most vocal supporter and Felton for Prez speaks for itself.

And I still think we could get the 5th seed, it just takes getting on a roll.

BRNC

02-26-2010, 12:21 AM

...until that "roll" happens I think I'll stick with feeling foolish...ROFLMAO...

SWedd523

02-26-2010, 12:38 AM

I wanted us to pick Jerryd Bayless. I remember that draft was when I joined BCP and I was the only one arguing for us to take Jerryd.

To Walt, I can concede that the term stupid was referencing a point moreso than a "name" but I still hold firm on not drawing me into the discussion. Teej has made plenty of comments on the topic that can be picked at before mine :p

Sure it's a caveat that he has to remain healthy, and I'm not one to speak in hypotheticals... but the injury issues kind of make BOTH sides of our argument invalid--in that we'll never know if 10/10 was possible because he never had the opportunity to do so. Using an injury, and the subsequent lackluster play isn't fair gamee

Walt Cronkite

02-26-2010, 01:06 AM

I only picked this thread to post in because it was the one with the most info on Morey. I searched just my posts for the words "Walt" and "Hollinger" and four or five threads came up that I could've posted in. I don't like Hollinger's stats, as I've made clear, and this was the quickest avenue for me to disprove your "he's just as good as the NBA" theory. I didn't want to start a new thread, but it seems that you would've liked that better. My apologies.

Where did I write that Hollinger was "just as good as the NBA"? I don't think I've ever doubted that teams with advanced statistic departments have better metrics than PER. I love Morey and know they track all sorts of things that Hollinger doesn't have access to. For example, the Rockets track when an individual player knocks the ball away from the player he is defending but doesn't block a shot or steal the ball (ie, no possession change, just a loose ball scramble or dead ball situation). It doesn't take much to draw the connection that incorporating that into an efficiency metric would create a different player ranking than what PER spits out.

In this thread, your argument for why Hollinger's metric predicted such an awful outcome to our season was because he didn't watch us play... that he didn't watch more than 5 or 6 teams in the NBA. I really took my time explaining some of the intricacies of WHY the results showed what they did, finally acknowledging that I preferred the individual player predictions over the team ones because of all of the factors that we all brought up, but admitted that I found them entertaining. Ironically, the pre-Jackson team came out of the gate worse than any of us expected and might have actually only won 29 games if we kept that squad together. The reason we went back and forth in this thread for so long was because you started totally typing out of your ass about how PER isn't worth discussion because Hollinger didn't have a job in the NBA. That is ridiculous. ESPN is a better outlet for his work than the NBA is, because he's a writer that developed an NBA efficiency metric, ESPN provides him with a much larger audience than working behind the scenes with an NBA franchise would. His metric is available to the public and has a high success rate predicting future events, thus it is worth discussion amongst fans of NBA teams.

Ok. Last season for us, Mek played 33 mpg, and put up 13/10. His per36 was 14.5/11. Solid numbers. This season, Nazr (who EVERYONE would agree is not as talented) is playing 17 mpg, and putting up 8/5. His per36 is 17/11. Tyson, in 28 games, has played 24 mpg and posted 6/6. His per36 is 9/10. That's including the games he came back and played "hurt."

Now, please tell me how 12/14 when he's totally healthy is unreachable in Mek's minutes? A double double when healthy is almost a lock.
Chandler's minutes are so low because of Larry Brown's rule about benching players in the first half once they have picked up two fouls. Since Chandler (literally, not hyperbole) often accomplished this in the first 6 minutes of action, his stats should not be extrapolated on on a per 36 minute basis because he would average closer to 30 minutes. Furthermore, since he couldn't average a double double per 36 minutes anyway, so it's hard to argue that he would average a double double on the season, much less one where he "easily" is getting 12-14 ppg. He would also be averaging nearly 3 and a half turnovers per 36, one and a half more than Emeka Okafor's 08-09 per 36. FWIW, I wouldn't agree with "EVERYONE" that Nazr is less talented than Okafor, they have strengths and weakness in different areas. I think everyone would agree that they are both vastly more talented than Tyson Chandler, but that ship has sailed.

And if possible, how Nazzy is making Mek look weak. Nazr is making many centers look bad. A fun situation I think about is what if LB hadn't been so reluctant to play Mohammed last season. Would we have traded for Diop? Would we have made the playoffs? Would Mek still be here? Unfortunately, I think a lot of success that Naz has accomplished this season is because of his limited PT last season, not in spite of it. It lit a fire under him, he took great care of himself and could not be denied minutes because of how effective he was being. This doesn't have much to do with TC, although it sort of suggests TC's opportunities to "easily" average a double double would be even more diminished because Naz would be taking opportunities away... but no one could've predicted that so it's hardly worth mentioning, Mohammed seemed like his greatest contribution would be as a large expiring a year from then.

Where you agreed with Hollinger that DJ was the future :facepalm:. Nearly everyone outside of Spectre and Felton for Prez did. I don't even remember what I said, other than Ray was a starting point guard (I re-read that today).Ah, the Hollinger Positional Rankings thread. Yea, I think your memory is acting up though. We went back and forth there a little, but I didn't say anything about DJ being the future over Felton. You took exception to me saying that "Felton could be the starting point guard on a championship team because of his poise and defense, but he'd have to be the fifth option on offense... maaaybe fourth if his shooting improves with time. But yea, I'd say he's a pretty average player that you optimally want coming off of the bench." Hollinger wrote something about Felton being best as a 3rd guard in a good team's rotation "unless he shows significant improvement this season" and that he'd have to fight for his job because DJ would be pushing for pt. I definitely didn't take a DJ vs Felton side. You took exception to Hollinger writing the we made a mistake taking DJ ahead of Lopez, which I agreed with, but I'd prefer to forget that :)

Walt Cronkite

02-26-2010, 01:12 AM

Sure it's a caveat that he has to remain healthy, and I'm not one to speak in hypotheticals... but the injury issues kind of make BOTH sides of our argument invalid--in that we'll never know if 10/10 was possible because he never had the opportunity to do so. Using an injury, and the subsequent lackluster play isn't fair gamee

I'll keep you out of it, I didn't want to be brought into this in the first place. I'm sure Teej thought he could drop that comment and he'd get the last word in the "Hollinger is an idiot that doesn't watch teh gamez" thread, but unluckily for him I was browsing BCP tonight to see if there was any news about the ownership stuff that RGM hadn't caught. Don't worry though, I don't expect that this thread will be open very long before Teej locks it on a modtrip...

Anyway, the health of a previously injured player HAS to be considered when projecting how easily a feat such as a double double will be accomplished. The tone of the original statements was as much anti-Okafor as it was pro-Chandler. Basically, since Okafor averaged a double double for years for the Cats, it would be easy for Chandler to step in and do the same, he might even match Okafor's production point for point. I knew that Chandler was not that good, but hoped he would fit better that Okafor.

spectre

02-26-2010, 05:26 AM

Like Sweed I don't want to be dragged into this either even tho it appears to be a minor side topic. But since I was named y'all get to deal with this little rant:

For the record and in case anyone hasn't noticed I have a positive outlook on ALL of our players 99% of the time...Fats on RGM once called me the most optimistic guy he's seen about the 'Cats, and I am.

Unlike many I don't see everything in a vacuum; I recognize that Felton has been dicked around by the two previous idiot coaches. I recognize that we got TC while he was still hurt and the FO should have put more weight on that and not just hope that it has magically healed. I can't speak for everyone...but I think the major caveat in regards to TC was "if he's healthy". He might have played a few games in stretches...but unless my memory is faulty he said he's NEVER been healthy; what time he has been on the court he was still in discomfort/pain.

I think DJ is a better defender than most here. I think Joey Graham is better than he's given credit for. As I mentioned in another thread I thought McInnis was fine as a backup PG.

Hell, I even overlooked the Idiot for a good stretch.

BTW...when I get time I'm planning on starting a thread solely about defense so we can talk about all the things that affect whether a player is good or bad.

I've supported (even tho I didn't necessarily like it) every move this franchise has made. I may bitch about it, but then I move on.

I suggest y'all do the same on this topic. This isn't a political site...there should be no "gotcha" on here. We're pulling for the same thing.

spectre

02-26-2010, 05:27 AM

Apologies to SWedd...but you know I had to do that! :biggrin:

Felton for Prez

02-26-2010, 12:16 PM

Spectre is just Ray's most vocal supporter and Felton for Prez speaks for itself.

While my "name" indicates a bias, my Felton support has been more about character, effort and his unfortunate circumstances. He's just a good dude, even if he's not an All-Star. I don't even know why I picked that name, it just seemed like a good idea at the time. I'd like to think I've been open minded about the PG discussion. Heck, I was even contemplating a name change at the start of the season when Ray's TOs outnumbered his assist by something like 2000.

Anyway, sports fans tend to want to annoint a guy who has a few good games as the next big thing (think Brandon Jennings this yr) and most of my arguments were intended to temper expectations. I still hold out hope that DJ figures it out, as spectre said we are all hoping for the same thing. I've just always been skeptical that he's big enough to be a starting NBA PG. That, and I've always been a little POed that we didn't draft Lopez but that topic has been beaten to death.

BRNC

02-26-2010, 01:51 PM

The good thing (IMO) about this thread for me is it "kinda gets you in the locker room"...it is sometimes easy to forget that we all really just want success for this team...we (for the most part) come at it from different approaches...but we'd all like to see the same result...

I think it is sometimes easy to forget that all the guys on the team want to win...they want the play-offs as much as we do...but I think they forget (at times) that they all want the same result and start going toward that result from "their" approach rather than the "team" approach...just a thought I had....

chabber

02-26-2010, 02:18 PM

Walt, that beat down reminded me of this guy.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/4/4f/EBM_-_Mortal_Combat.gif

Slam

02-26-2010, 04:15 PM

Walt, that beat down reminded me of this guy.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/4/4f/EBM_-_Mortal_Combat.gif

Moral of the story: Don't piss Santa off when he is on the bus during his summer vacation!!

teej

02-26-2010, 04:48 PM

Where did I write that Hollinger was "just as good as the NBA"?

More that I said he wasn't talented enough to be hired, which you repeatedly denied, even though Morey has said that his work is basically useless to an NBA team.

In this thread, your argument for why Hollinger's metric predicted such an awful outcome to our season was because he didn't watch us play... that he didn't watch more than 5 or 6 teams in the NBA. I really took my time explaining some of the intricacies of WHY the results showed what they did, finally acknowledging that I preferred the individual player predictions over the team ones because of all of the factors that we all brought up, but admitted that I found them entertaining. Ironically, the pre-Jackson team came out of the gate worse than any of us expected and might have actually only won 29 games if we kept that squad together. The reason we went back and forth in this thread for so long was because you started totally typing out of your ass about how PER isn't worth discussion because Hollinger didn't have a job in the NBA. That is ridiculous. ESPN is a better outlet for his work than the NBA is, because he's a writer that developed an NBA efficiency metric, ESPN provides him with a much larger audience than working behind the scenes with an NBA franchise would. His metric is available to the public and has a high success rate predicting future events, thus it is worth discussion amongst fans of NBA teams.

A) I knew the 29 wins prediction was a computer number. I argued about his abilities to provide player scouting reports and previews for the Bobcats because it was clear from nearly every angle he didn't watch the team, rather looked at the stats. If you look at nearly every Hollinger discussion, I don't like two things: His holier-than-thou attitude with PER for many players, and the overuse of him for analysis on ESPN.

B) It's ridiculous that PER isn't worth discussion, even though it predicted DJ Augustin to have a great season and Nazr Mohammed to be a weak bench player? It predicted the Bucks and Bobs to be in the East cellar and the Wizards and Pistons to be in the playoff race, but that's ok. After all, it wasn't any different than Mark Stein's "feel-o-meter," right? Oh, wait. It's supposed to predict, right. :facepalm: Did it predict Crash's nightly nearly 20/10? Or Ray's 41% 3pt shooting?

C) Look, I'm sure Hollinger is doing just fine at ESPN, and really, I don't begrudge him that. He's a good writer grammatically, and he's no worse of a writer than anyone else they have. My only beef is he's considered accurate. If he was so accurate with predictions, he'd be a billionaire by betting in Vegas.

Chandler's minutes are so low because of Larry Brown's rule about benching players in the first half once they have picked up two fouls. Since Chandler (literally, not hyperbole) often accomplished this in the first 6 minutes of action, his stats should not be extrapolated on on a per 36 minute basis because he would average closer to 30 minutes. Furthermore, since he couldn't average a double double per 36 minutes anyway, so it's hard to argue that he would average a double double on the season, much less one where he "easily" is getting 12-14 ppg. He would also be averaging nearly 3 and a half turnovers per 36, one and a half more than Emeka Okafor's 08-09 per 36. FWIW, I wouldn't agree with "EVERYONE" that Nazr is less talented than Okafor, they have strengths and weakness in different areas. I think everyone would agree that they are both vastly more talented than Tyson Chandler, but that ship has sailed.

I'm not debating Chandler anymore. Not because I think you're right, but because it's impossible to know what he would've done. The guy's been hurt all year and he's actually put up decent numbers.

As for Nazr, you seriously won't agree that a 32 year old journeyman center who hasn't started half his career games and never put up 10ppg or 10 rpg in a season (much less both) isn't as talented as a 27 year old number two pick who has averaged a double double every year of his career, won rookie of the year, and been in the top 5 of NBA statistics in so many categories? Even your almighty PER says Mek is better :p

Walt Cronkite

02-26-2010, 04:54 PM

Mohammed's PER this year is WAAAY higher than Mek's. I'll respond to the rest when I get around to it.

teej

02-26-2010, 04:55 PM

Mohammed's PER this year is WAAAY higher than Mek's. I'll respond to the rest when I get around to it.

I was talking about career PER.

But ya know, Nazr had a 7.7 PER last year. I thought it was supposed to predict his 20.7 PER this year?

Walt Cronkite

02-26-2010, 06:10 PM

More that I said he wasn't talented enough to be hired, which you repeatedly denied, even though Morey has said that his work is basically useless to an NBA team.

You kept trying to discuss the amount of money people made and I wanted no part of that speculation. John Hollinger is a sports writer who has been an influential mind in the progression of apbrmetrics. Morey said that the stuff in public domain has a lot of issues with it, something I and Hollinger readily acknowledge. I don't make the leap from that comment to "he isn't talented enough to be hired", that's a reach in logic that only you are capable of defending since you have all of your inside sources. I don't get the scoops that you do, I'm just a basketball fan, not someone in the industry. :rolleyes:

A) I knew the 29 wins prediction was a computer number. I argued about his abilities to provide player scouting reports and previews for the Bobcats because it was clear from nearly every angle he didn't watch the team, rather looked at the stats. If you look at nearly every Hollinger discussion, I don't like two things: His holier-than-thou attitude with PER for many players, and the overuse of him for analysis on ESPN.

I've actually thought about this since I posted the Hollinger player previews and realized my mistake. The mistake was to post the breakdown of Bobcat players. I should've posted division rivals or something. You will only ever believe that he doesn't watch the Bobcats because it creates a straw man that I cannot defeat. I cannot prove that John Hollinger watches us or not. I can only use logic to determine that I watch many teams besides the Bobcats and I don't get paid by a major sports website to write about what I see and what my efficiency rater is catching. John Hollinger is a legitimate fan of the NBA, he's a Hawks fan because he lives in Atlanta and I know he has randomly become a supporter of other teams because of individual players doing amazing things demonstrated by PER. As an example, I know he watched a lot of Bucks games when Michael Redd, whom he used to call his favorite player to watch, was starting to do his thing.

I mention this because your initial argument for why John Hollinger obviously doesn't watch the Bobcats is because of his analysis of the Okafor/Chandler swap. At the time, you were making any excuse you could for how the move was not only made for the financial ramifications, but to make us better as a basketball team. That Okafor had outperformed Chandler by PER's measures in each season except for his rookie campaign on an expansion team was not cause for concern, because you have actually SEEN Okafor play. You're been WATCHING. Our eyes MUST know more than some stupid mathematical formula. For Hollinger to be openly assessing that Okafor, no offensive juggernaut in his own right, was still more talented than Chandler, meant that he must've drawn that conclussion from his efficiency rater, THEREFORE he does not watch the actual game, so his analysis is only as worthwhile as the statistics within his metric, ie. he's the talk box for a glorified box score cliffnotes program.

Hollinger talks about other metrics, +/-, EWA, VA (to name a few) when discussing trends in his Per diems or whatever else he writes... but because he talks about PER as well, he must view it as holier than thou...k

B) It's ridiculous that PER isn't worth discussion, even though it predicted DJ Augustin to have a great season and Nazr Mohammed to be a weak bench player? It predicted the Bucks and Bobs to be in the East cellar and the Wizards and Pistons to be in the playoff race, but that's ok. After all, it wasn't any different than Mark Stein's "feel-o-meter," right? Oh, wait. It's supposed to predict, right. :facepalm: Did it predict Crash's nightly nearly 20/10? Or Ray's 41% 3pt shooting?

A prediction is when trends from the past are analyzed to make future projections. Mohammed, in the preview article in question, wasn't given a predicted per at all based on the limited minutes he played the year before. It's hard to remember because of Mohammed's play this year, but in the few minutes Naz played for LB last year, he looked really terrible. When rookie PGs shoot as well as DJ did, apparently it's rare for them to shoot as terribly as he has this season. Why would a statistical efficiency rater project Crash or Ray's specific improvements? Anyone that thinks Ray would improve his shooting this season was doing it based on faith, not available data. The projections for the teams in these articles are based on the previous year's performance of the players on the teams in late September. You shouldn't mortgage your house based on these articles, but you can have thought provoking discussion based on things the article mentions. For example, Hollinger was dead on that we'd have to be an elite defensive team if we were going to be a playoff contender with that roster because of how terrible our offense would be. Our offense was league worst bad until the Jackson trade... this was something everyone took exception to at the time but Hollinger got exactly right.

I'm not debating Chandler anymore. Not because I think you're right, but because it's impossible to know what he would've done. The guy's been hurt all year and he's actually put up decent numbers.

As for Nazr, you seriously won't agree that a 32 year old journeyman center who hasn't started half his career games and never put up 10ppg or 10 rpg in a season (much less both) isn't as talented as a 27 year old number two pick who has averaged a double double every year of his career, won rookie of the year, and been in the top 5 of NBA statistics in so many categories? Even your almighty PER says Mek is better :p

The guy was hurt all year last year too. It's impossible to KNOW what he would've done, but we can use previous performances as an indicator of likely performance. Chandler averaging a double double and matching the production of Okafor would've been the exception to his career, not the rule.

As far as Naz goes, he's having a career year. He's been a roughly league average player through most of his career and he's never been as good on defense as he is on offense. Okafor is a more talented defender with very robotic offensive maneuvers. If we could've created frankencenter (TM Mezo) with Mek and this year's Naz we would've had one of the top 5 centers in the NBA on both ends of the floor. Unfortunately, they weren't a very effective unit on the floor together and we dumped Mek for delayed cap relief. If you could only have one, I'd take Okafor, but I think debating who is more "talented" is more complicated than you do, apparently.