PDA

View Full Version : John Hollingers: Who will be good in the pros



Really?
06-20-2011, 03:14 PM
Hollinger used his draft rater to rate the top 60 prospects of who he fells will be the best in the pros by his data.

He has Norris Cole as the big steal and Shelvin Mack and Marshon Brooks bring up the bottom.

Not saying that these are super accurate or not but it is interesting looking at the analysis that he has mad.

Here is the link to the whole article if you want to read it, might be ESPN insider though.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2011/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=draftrater-110620

If your really that interested I can paste the rest but I thought the rankings were more of the interesting aspect.

He did mention a couple of thinks to keep in mind though:

One-and-done gives it trouble.

UCLA messes it up.

It's way better with perimeter players.

It skews higher for big men.


Here is a little bit about his analysis of brooks though his rater:

Probably the most suspect candidate, according to Draft Rater, is Marshon Brooks; his 7.88 rating was 27th among perimeter players. The Providence guard put up huge stats, but his average is hugely padded by two factors: First, the Friars played the fastest pace of any major Division I team; second, Brooks played nearly every minute of every game, averaging 36.5 per game -- remember, they play only 40 in college. Let all the air out and his numbers look a lot more ordinary -- his usage rate, which is his most alluring stat, ranks only ninth among prospects. Given his age (22 and five months) and his relative inefficiency, I'm not sure there's a ton to see here. Draft Rater sees him as a second rounder.





It's a fool's errand, but let's do it anyway.

Yep, it's time for the Draft Rater. There are inherent limitations in trying to pore through a player's statistics and project what he'll be capable of five years down the road. The things the stats don't tell us -- about his dedication, eating habits, off-court life, the system his team runs, and 10,000 other things -- badly outnumber what the stats do tell us.

Yet, surprisingly, the stats seem able to tell us quite a bit. That's the premise behind the Draft Rater, my annual data-driven guide to the draft, and this year we have better clues than ever as to how it can help us and how it can't.

To review, my Draft Rater is a regression analysis comparing 16 variables to a player's NBA player efficiency rating, using the average of their top three seasons in their first seven years as a pro. Some haven't played three seasons yet or won't ever, so we take their career PER. We've also set a PER floor of 4.0 for those who couldn't make the league, and 5.0 for those who barely made it.

I've once again rebuilt it from the bottom up this year. Along with this year's revisions, the Rater was already getting smarter every year as it got more data and more NBA results from players already drafted. As a result, we can see with greater specificity which statistics translate to the pro game and which ones don't.

Second, we've seen the particular ways in which it fails. The most obvious one is on all the squishy stuff -- character, dedication, conditioning, etc. Michael Beasley, Michael Sweetney and DeMarcus Cousins all got huge marks from the Draft Rater, but one could justify passing on them on draft day given the other red flags. Similarly, we don't have a good measure for injury-proneness either -- Curtis Borchardt, Brandan Wright and Greg Oden, take a bow.

But more particularly, in back testing this year's Draft Rater, it's become obvious where it succeeds and where it falters.


If you're looking for the Cliffs Notes version of my Draft Rater, here are the five big takeaways:

Marshon Brooks, Josh Selby and the two Morrises appear overvalued.
Brandon Knight, Jimmer Fredette and Jan Vesely are overvalued, but not as strongly.
Kyrie Irving and Derrick Williams are, rightly, the top two players on the board.
Tristan Thompson and Tobias Harris are undervalued.
Jon Leuer, Norris Cole and Greg Smith are your sleepers.

And now, my top 60 heading into Wednesday:

My board

1. Kyrie Irving
2. Derrick Williams
3. Tristan Thompson
4. Jonas Valuncianas
5. Kawhi Leonard
6. Enes Kanter
7. Kemba Walker
8. Tobias Harris
9. Alec Burks
10. Jordan Hamilton
11. Bismack Biyombo
12. Brandon Knight
13. Tyler Honeycutt
14. Jon Leuer
15. Nikola Vucevic
16. Chris Singleton
17. Jan Vesely
18. Klay Thompson
19. Norris Cole
20. Iman Shumpert
21. Nikola Mirotic
22. Jimmer Fredette
23. Donatas Motiejunas
24. Greg Smith
25. Marcus Morris
26. JaJuan Johnson
27. Markieff Morris
28. Davis Bertans
29. Kenneth Faried
30. Jeremy Tyler
31. Jordan Williams
32. Bojan Bogdanovic
33. Darius Morris
34. Giorgi Shermadini
35. Reggie Jackson
36. Rick Jackson
37. Brad Wanamaker
38. Damian Saunders
39. Nolan Smith
40. Malcolm Thomas
41. Travis Leslie
42. Trey Thompkins
43. Malcolm Lee
44. Charles Jenkins
45. Cory Joseph
46. E'Twaun Moore
47. Josh Selby
48. Jacob Pullen
49. Justin Harper
50. Jimmy Butler
51. Matt Howard
52. Jamie Skeen
53. Jereme Richmond
54. Keith Benson
55. D.J. Kennedy
56. Marshon Brooks
57. Isaiah Thomas
58. Andrew Goudelouck
59. Lavoy Allen
60. Shelvin Mack

Pacergeek
06-20-2011, 04:39 PM
LOL at Selby being higher than Mack. LMAO at Mack finishing in last place.

Kstat
06-20-2011, 04:43 PM
Last year Hollinger's 11th and 12th ranked prospects were the immortal Sylven Landesberg and Omar Samhan.

Epke Udoh was ranked 50th.

Ed Davis was ranked 54th.

Hollinger is a hack.

Since86
06-20-2011, 04:51 PM
Last year Hollinger's 11th and 12th ranked prospects were the immortal Sylven Landesberg and Omar Samhan.

Epke Udoh was ranked 50th.

Ed Davis was ranked 54th.

Hollinger is a hack.

I was just gonna ask if someone could post the one from last year. I bet it's still considered an "insider" article.

Kstat
06-20-2011, 04:52 PM
It gets better the further you go back. Ty Lawson was his highest rated prospect in 2009, ahead of Blake Griffin.

Demar Derozen was 54th. Tony Douglass was 62nd.

In 2007 Josh McRoberts was ranked 8th, ahead of Joakim Noah.

In 2006, he ranked Tyrus Thomas 1st, Shelden Williams 2nd, Paul Davis 7th, and LaMarcus Aldridge 10th.

2005: Rashad McCants 4th, Nate Robinson 10th, Deron Williams 11th. Enough said there.

He went nutty in 2003 and Ranked Mike Sweetney ahead of Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade.

Scot Pollard
06-20-2011, 05:00 PM
Last year Hollinger's 11th and 12th ranked prospects were the immortal Sylven Landesberg and Omar Samhan.

Epke Udoh was ranked 50th.

Ed Davis was ranked 54th.

Hollinger is a hack.

Yeah really this guy isn't that bright.

Kstat
06-20-2011, 05:08 PM
I'm sure he can dissect the **** out of a spreadsheet. Just keep him off my NBA insider.

wintermute
06-20-2011, 05:43 PM
Hollinger is a hack.

He's a statistician trying to apply his methods to basketball. Unfortunately I don't think he's doing a good job with this draft rater.

It all comes down to sample size. Statistical methods work best when you have thousands, maybe millions of data points. With draft prospects though, you have maybe 100+ every year? It's just too much variance.

In statistics, you're often told to ignore the outliers. However, in a draft where only 60 players get selected, and fewer would eventually make rosters, the outliers are pretty damn important, and that's where this draft rating method fails.

Really?
06-20-2011, 06:02 PM
I think the top 12 isn't too bad but then it gets kind of floppy... and yeah there are so many things that determine how a player will become even after they get drafted.

I think Brooks will be just fine, but yea only time will tell.

I will say that I like seeing some stuff like this just to get an different view of draft potential.

Some of his calculations were dead on and others were just wayyy off, I guess even if they are way off they will provide a decent amount of humor in the future. :D

PacersHomer
06-20-2011, 06:24 PM
Jon Leuer at #14 stands out for being Please, the censor is there for a reason; don't cheat it stupid to me.

Eleazar
06-20-2011, 06:37 PM
LOL at Selby being higher than Mack. LMAO at Mack finishing in last place.

Yeah, I don't really expect Mack to be much more than a back-up, but the worst player in the draft that is laughable.

Justin Tyme
06-20-2011, 06:38 PM
being Please, the censor is there for a reason; don't cheat it stupid


How did this get the the filter or whatever it's called??

dal9
06-20-2011, 07:02 PM
How did this get the the filter or whatever it's called??

if you sign up for the premium membership, you get to cuss...

pacer4ever
06-20-2011, 08:14 PM
It gets better the further you go back. Ty Lawson was his highest rated prospect in 2009, ahead of Blake Griffin.

Demar Derozen was 54th. Tony Douglass was 62nd.

In 2007 Josh McRoberts was ranked 8th, ahead of Joakim Noah.

In 2006, he ranked Tyrus Thomas 1st, Shelden Williams 2nd, Paul Davis 7th, and LaMarcus Aldridge 10th.

2005: Rashad McCants 4th, Nate Robinson 10th, Deron Williams 11th. Enough said there.

He went nutty in 2003 and Ranked Mike Sweetney ahead of Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade.

Demar Derozan at #54 should of been a crime!!

Rogco
06-20-2011, 08:23 PM
I appreciate John's use of statistics (or at least I find it interesting), but I think you really need to look at the variables in use if Mack is 60. I mean he led his team to the finals twice and led the country in isolation efficiency. That stat alone should raise him off the bottom!

mikeyism
06-20-2011, 08:39 PM
So, if Hollinger was Pacer's GM, he would take Tobias Harris in the 1st, and either Jon Leuer or Norris Cole in the 2nd round. I feel ok with that. Not great, just ok.

Kemo
06-20-2011, 08:55 PM
I think some of these writers have an alterior motive..

Like saying things such as Brooks being selfish, and that his teammates really didnt care for him and etc..
All so he will drop in stock,get people/fans to say no thanks, so he will land on a certain team that the writer is a homer for ..



just my opinion , but it makes ya think..

Indra
06-20-2011, 09:01 PM
This guy is stupid.

Indra
06-20-2011, 09:05 PM
I think some of these writers have an alterior motive..

Like saying things such as Brooks being selfish, and that his teammates really didnt care for him and etc..
All so he will drop in stock,get people/fans to say no thanks, so he will land on a certain team that the writer is a homer for ..



just my opinion , but it makes ya think..

I would hope that professional scouts, coaches, and GM's don't put so much stock into a hack like Hollinger's opinion that it effects their draft order. One would hope, anyway.

Kid Minneapolis
06-20-2011, 09:08 PM
He's right; it *is* a fool's errand.

cdash
06-20-2011, 09:29 PM
With every Hollinger article comes the parade of people bashing him. Why even post anything he says? I could have predicted this entire thread before even opening it.

It's a tool. He admits it has flaws and isn't meant to be definitive. People don't like his usage of stats (or more accurately, the conclusions he draws from them), and that's fine. It's a different viewpoint from a sabermetric guy using advanced algorithms (I think?) and other techniques to come to conclusions. Hate to break it to a lot of you, but almost every NBA team has their version of John Hollinger, and if you saw their draft boards I'm sure you would call them hacks and idiots as well. They look different because they are supposed to look different. If this was foolproof every team would use it. There are hits and misses with anyone and everyone's draft boards. Hindsight is a beautiful thing. Do I agree with all this silliness? Not really. Some of it seems pretty absurd to me, but I understand that it's a tool, not the final word.

Rant over, now I must admit that I have more than passing interest in Jon Leuer and Norris Cole for our second round pick. I think that is what this tool is best for: Finding sleepers.

bphil
06-20-2011, 09:36 PM
What stats is he using for Kanter? Dood didn't even play in a single game last year. Did he go back to Turkey to get his numbers? Just curious.

cdash
06-20-2011, 10:04 PM
What stats is he using for Kanter? Dood didn't even play in a single game last year. Did he go back to Turkey to get his numbers? Just curious.

He said he didn't have any stats for Kanter. He based his evaluation on seeing him play in the Nike Hoops Summit and third parties (I assume).

ChristianDudley
06-20-2011, 10:12 PM
I'm surprised to see him list Mack at the very last spot...but to each his own I suppose.

Justin Tyme
06-20-2011, 11:08 PM
if you sign up for the premium membership, you get to cuss...


I do too much of that now w/o having to use it on a forum. I'm a member of the Potty Mouth Club in GOOD STANDING! I just never felt gutteral language had a place on a forum. Then again I never felt it had a place in music either. JMOAA

graphic-er
06-20-2011, 11:13 PM
Well based on his past raters, then Shelvin Mack will actually end up being one of the more promising players in the draft.

Hicks
06-20-2011, 11:37 PM
With every Hollinger article comes the parade of people bashing him. Why even post anything he says? I could have predicted this entire thread before even opening it.

It's a tool. He admits it has flaws and isn't meant to be definitive. People don't like his usage of stats (or more accurately, the conclusions he draws from them), and that's fine. It's a different viewpoint from a sabermetric guy using advanced algorithms (I think?) and other techniques to come to conclusions. Hate to break it to a lot of you, but almost every NBA team has their version of John Hollinger, and if you saw their draft boards I'm sure you would call them hacks and idiots as well. They look different because they are supposed to look different. If this was foolproof every team would use it. There are hits and misses with anyone and everyone's draft boards. Hindsight is a beautiful thing. Do I agree with all this silliness? Not really. Some of it seems pretty absurd to me, but I understand that it's a tool, not the final word.

Rant over, now I must admit that I have more than passing interest in Jon Leuer and Norris Cole for our second round pick. I think that is what this tool is best for: Finding sleepers.

Personally, so long as any tool he wants to throw out there has this many glaring weaknesses, it's very hard for me to take it seriously.

Sookie
06-20-2011, 11:41 PM
Personally, so long as any tool he wants to throw out there has this many glaring weaknesses, it's very hard for me to take it seriously.

Of course it has weaknesses, he's ranking entirely based on a statistc. (or several.)

Basketball is a sport played by humans, not robots. Any time you use any sort of statistic as THE tool, you're going to have a ton of weaknesses.

That being said..he's rankings..should be looked at as something "interesting" and another "way" to look at the incoming class of rookies.

Hicks
06-20-2011, 11:45 PM
I agree with your general point about statistics being (over)used to describe something directly involving humanity, but he still ought to tighten something like this up before making it public, IMO. It's just too off to come out with it.

Besides, it's a joke to try to do it with the stats available anyway. There's not even a consensus on how conclusive we ought to be with regards to what the stats tell us already recently happened, let alone trying to use them to project five years into the future. It's largely nuts IMO.

Day-V
06-21-2011, 08:48 AM
That being said..he's rankings..should be looked at as something "interesting" and another "way" to look at the incoming class of rookies.

Yeah. The Wrong Way.