PDA

View Full Version : 2008-2009 Hollinger's Player Predictions



duke dynamite
10-16-2008, 02:02 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/rankings

T.J. Ford at 22
Danny Granger at 89
Mike Dunleavy at 103
Troy Murphy at 111
Rasho Nesterovic at 119 (one better than Jason Kidd!)
Jeff Foster at 140


Noteworthy:
Jermaine O'Neal at 127
Stephen Jackson at 159

Jonathan
10-16-2008, 02:27 PM
I do not understand. Is this fantasy? Overall? What is the formula for ranking players?

duke dynamite
10-16-2008, 02:28 PM
This is Mr. Hollinger's way of ranking the players. Not fantasy related.

Major Cold
10-16-2008, 02:38 PM
This is Mr. Hollinger's way of ranking the players. Not fantasy related.
might as well be.

ajbry
10-16-2008, 02:41 PM
Hollinger needs to go away. Why does ESPN still employ this clown?

PER is an inherently flawed measure, and it was created by a nerd who doesn't watch games...

Hicks
10-16-2008, 02:45 PM
He's saying he thinks TJ will be the 22nd best player in the league?

ajbry
10-16-2008, 03:02 PM
He's saying he thinks TJ will be the 22nd best player in the league?

Yes. And Carl Landry is the 24th. Leon Powe is the 30th best player in the NBA.

He takes his PER very seriously, so to him it is the purest indicator of who is a good player and who isn't (Stephen Jackson and Shane Battier, for example).

xtacy
10-16-2008, 03:08 PM
Carl Landry is the 24th. Leon Powe is the 30th best player in the NBA.

this guys saying this and still getting paid being an nba writer. some people are just born lucky.

Infinite MAN_force
10-16-2008, 03:12 PM
I don't think its a measure of "best" per se, just a stat based ranking.

duke dynamite
10-16-2008, 03:15 PM
Looking at it, I think it's a highly flawed system.

count55
10-16-2008, 03:32 PM
Strictly speaking, it's an Efficiency rating. It's a way to measure how much statistical production a player can squeeze out of the minutes he plays. It's essentially an over-engineered way to look at the numbers. It's as if you turned an economist loose with BBR.com.

Now, the problem with Hollinger is that he substitutes efficiency for quality. I would have no problem believing that Carl Landry, as an example, was one of the 25 most efficient players in the league. To me, that says he gets the most out of his time. However, when he makes the leap to say that he's one of the 25best players in the league, he's over-reached the utility of the analysis.

The problem that this runs into, (as well as any per-40 or per-36 type analysis) is the law of diminishing returns. Travis Diener can be very useful, in short stints. Play the guy 36 minutes, and he will get exploited. Jeff Foster maximizes his 20-24 minutes a game, but 32 minutes too often will grind on him physically and highlight his offensive weaknesses.

Statistical metrics like these tend to be directionally correct, but they have a lot of outliers. I'm usually unsurprised about where a player falls. However, when a ranking doesn't jibe with my view of the player, I'll look a little closer. Sometimes (maybe 1/3 of the time), I'll realize my view of the player was flawed, and adjust my views to be more aligned with the ranking. However, most of the time it ends up being just another case of lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Slick Pinkham
10-16-2008, 03:45 PM
Its not a player quality rating, It is what it is --- productivity per minute rating

Some highly productive players, if they played a lot more minutes, would drop way off. Some very good players would be more productive with a capable backup to give them more rest.

Guys like Landry and Powe who played in the teens in minutes are good players but if they doubled their court time they would no way double their stats. Lots of their production comes off of high energy and favorable matchups with second-stringers.

Among players with similar roles though it can have meaning, like ranking efficiency of all players at the same position who play 30-35 min/g as an example.

Any system where Jackson scores low is fine with me though.

;)


--
edit-- I sorta said what count 55 said, in different words! I started before his was posted but then I got sidetracked.

Hicks
10-16-2008, 03:46 PM
Yes. And Carl Landry is the 24th. Leon Powe is the 30th best player in the NBA.

He takes his PER very seriously, so to him it is the purest indicator of who is a good player and who isn't (Stephen Jackson and Shane Battier, for example).

Of course, another way to look at it is it's not an indicator of the BEST players but the best players at putting positive stats on the board. Which is not bad, just misleading.

ChicagoJ
10-16-2008, 03:51 PM
I had a coach in middle school that was a math teacher.

Our halftimes consisted of him calculating our "team effeciency ratio" on the chalkboard. Then he would write the score underneath it. We were usually trailing. Often, we were losing by a lot.

He would then tell us the key to success was to raise our effeciency ratio, and with that great insight, we'd run out for the second half and get crushed.

I don't recall that he ever diagrammed a play. Oh yeah, we also had a goofy defensive formula to memorize (trap after a made FT, 2-3 zone after a made FG, man-to-man after a missed FG or turnover.)

Sounds like Hollinger. All of those stats just result in the quantification of a really stupid analysis in the first place.

Slick Pinkham
10-16-2008, 04:02 PM
The main problem is putting together a huge list for all sorts of players with different roles.

The stat would have meaning, I think, if similar-position players playing similar minutes were binned together.

period.

Not a huge list with 12 mpg backups and 40 mpg starters, one a C and the other a G, for example, clustered together.

count55
10-16-2008, 04:06 PM
I had a coach in middle school that was a math teacher.

Our halftimes consisted of him calculating our "team effeciency ratio" on the chalkboard. Then he would write the score underneath it. We were usually trailing. Often, we were losing by a lot.

He would then tell us the key to success was to raise our effeciency ratio, and with that great insight, we'd run out for the second half and get crushed.

I don't recall that he ever diagrammed a play. Oh yeah, we also had a goofy defensive formula to memorize (trap after a made FT, 2-3 zone after a made FG, man-to-man after a missed FG or turnover.)

Sounds like Hollinger. All of those stats just result in the quantification of a really stupid analysis in the first place.

In a review early in my career, I was told I needed to improve my patience.

Being a good young brown nose, I promptly and brightly inquired, "Yes, I agree. What kind of things do you think I could do to improve in that area?"

She responded, "Gee, I don't know...I think it would help a lot if, when you were dealing with people, that you were more patient. That's probably the best way to make this a strength, rather than a weakness."

Gee...Thanks.

pacergod2
10-17-2008, 12:02 PM
I find this thread hilarious. I love Chicago J's Math teacher story. I will refrain from even calling him a basketball coach. And Count as always, you are spot on. I hate Hollinger and think he is nothing but a waste of ESPN website space. He knows NOTHING about basketball. I am an accountant. Give me his job. I tell you what i would do.... is multiply that efficiency rating by the average minutes played and get back to a gross analysis of the players production. That is more telling than his bull**** efficiency stat. I love efficient bench players. I really do, but Hollinger is a toad and so is his analysis. You could just look at a players stat sheets on a whole and get a better indication of a player than what hollinger puts out there. You take out the few anomaly games... like Landry putting up 22 points against he Pacers or whatever he did and you have yourself an indication of what a player is.... STATISTICALLY.

I tell you what I would rather have though. An analyst that talks about real basketball. Give credit to guys that set picks. Give credit to guys that defend well. Give credit to PG's that set up plays for two passes ahead of the pass they make. Or how about a guy that can make an entry pass to the post. GIVE ME THAT. THAT'S what I want. But I am selfish.

The Treasurer of HOLLINGER HATER NATION,

pacergod2

McKeyFan
10-17-2008, 02:16 PM
I had a coach in middle school that was a math teacher.

Our halftimes consisted of him calculating our "team effeciency ratio" on the chalkboard. Then he would write the score underneath it. We were usually trailing. Often, we were losing by a lot.

He would then tell us the key to success was to raise our effeciency ratio, and with that great insight, we'd run out for the second half and get crushed.

I don't recall that he ever diagrammed a play. Oh yeah, we also had a goofy defensive formula to memorize (trap after a made FT, 2-3 zone after a made FG, man-to-man after a missed FG or turnover.)

Sounds like Hollinger. All of those stats just result in the quantification of a really stupid analysis in the first place.

Yeah, I gotta prop that story too. Very funny.

dohman
10-17-2008, 02:30 PM
should we trade granger for leon powe?

maragin
10-17-2008, 03:14 PM
I like statisticians' views of sports, including Hollinger. He doesn't make outlandish claims, presents it as just a tool, and if you read the details surrounding the numbers, he generally makes plenty of sense. He's just one of many guys making a living around APBRmetrics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APBRmetrics

I'd love to get articles from the Winval guys. They've been providing player efficiency stats for the Mavericks since '01, and Cuban seems to think Wayne Winston and Jeff Sagarin have done a hell of a job. Their stats are referenced in all player/ lineup decisions.

Sports, to me, are a mix of art and science. Increasingly useful statistical analysis is another way to gain a competitive edge, be it as an owner of a pro team, or the owner of a fantasy team. As a gambler, I enjoy removing as much bias as possible to increase the accuracy with which I view a system. Hollinger articles provide predictions with a basis in stats, rather than pure conjecture or feel. He then encourages the reader to "apply your own logic from there."

Justin Tyme
10-17-2008, 05:37 PM
should we trade granger for leon powe?

They don't need an understudy for Paul Pierce.