In another rending addition of his daily power rankings, with his stupid fucked up formula that makes no sense...he has the Pistons ranked 13th, and behind the 6-6 Cavs, the 6-6 Raptors and the 6-7 Houston Rockets....what an idiot!


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerranking[


he is by far the weakest link of NBA's analyst department...who the F creates formulas to determine whos good??? LOOK AT THE FUCKING RECORDS...

Cleveland averages 100 ppg, yet they're opponents are averaging 102 ppg...what a joke

RATING = (((SOS-0.5)/0.037)*0.67) + (((SOSL10-0.5)/0.037)*0.33) + 100 + (0.67*(MARG+(((ROAD-HOME)*3.5)/(GAMES))) +
(0.33*(MARGL10+(((ROADL10-HOMEL10)*3.5)/(10)))))


Theres the formula...talk about fraudlent math

In this particular case it's all about strength of schedule but it should balance out as we get deeper into the season. The pistons have played a lot of crappy teams. If you sort that list by strength of schedule, the pistons are second to last.

With only 12 games gone by, they take a double hit because the schedule for the last 10 and the schedule for the full season get counted.

I was looking forward to gee defending JHol and "the process", lol

In this particular case it's all about strength of schedule but it should balance out as we get deeper into the season. The pistons have played a lot of crappy teams. If you sort that list by strength of schedule, the pistons are second to last.

With only 12 games gone by, they take a double hit because the schedule for the last 10 and the schedule for the full season get counted.


Then he should really get a new name for it rather than having that formula translate into "power rankings"

Then he should really get a new name for it rather than having that formula translate into "power rankings"

Because there's an official definition of what "power rankings" are that this violates? I always figured that anything that subjectively ranked teams based on anything other than W/L record qualified. Even though this one is formula based it's still just one person's opinion on which stats other than W/L offer some insight on how well a team is doing at a given moment.

I'd be interested to see someone go beyond "it's dumb because the pistons aren't near the top" to go into any detail about why the premise is flawed.

If I replace dumb with silly does that qualify?

Because there's an official definition of what "power rankings" are that this violates? I always figured that anything that subjectively ranked teams based on anything other than W/L record qualified. Even though this one is formula based it's still just one person's opinion on which stats other than W/L offer some insight on how well a team is doing at a given moment.

I'd be interested to see someone go beyond "it's dumb because the pistons aren't near the top" to go into any detail about why the premise is flawed.

It's dumb because sports don't = mathematical formulas.

It's dumb because sports don't = mathematical formulas.

You're right, stats have no place in sports discussions.

You're right, stats have no place in sports discussions.


Stats have a place in sports discussions. Not any and every place.

Stats should comprise 50% of sports discussions, plus or minus 49%.

Stats have a place in sports discussions. Not any and every place.

Who/when/where was it suggested that it was the end all and be all?

You're right, stats have no place in sports discussions.He's so right, it's not like NBA teams are adding statisticians to their scout teams or anything.

Who/when/where was it suggested that it was the end all and be all?
He's got a point here. Some people may hate all the shit Hollinger does, but if you don't like it just don't read it. Some people enjoy that little bit of extra perspective. He's not saying this is the only way to rank the teams in the league. He's just saying that based on their stats, this is how it shakes out. I also think that if we give this a little more time into the season, it'll look a little bit more plausible. It's still far too small of a sample.

The pistons have played only 3 teams with a winning record this year and lost to 2 of them. The rest of their opponents collectively have a record of 38-87 which equates to a .304 winning percentage. I'd say the pistons probably aren't as good as some people think....

The pistons have played only 3 teams with a winning record this year and lost to 2 of them. The rest of their opponents collectively have a record of 38-87 which equates to a .304 winning percentage. I'd say the pistons probably aren't as good as some people think....


Two words: Rodney Stuckey

Also, I agree with you, yargs. We aren't what people thought we were.

Who/when/where was it suggested that it was the end all and be all?


John Hollinger.

I did notice that ESPN.com has sort of been "hiding" his power rankings so far. You really had to look for them up until the last week or so.

Now that they are sort of taking shape, look for them to be front and center more.

I feel the same way about this thing as I do the pre and early season college football polls, why not wait a few weeks before making yourself look bad by putting garbage out there?

John Hollinger.Really? I'd like to see where that was.

Really? I'd like to see where that was.
You can go to any article John Hollinger has ever had published, or maybe a chat John has done, or talk to him yourself in the street. He regularly has to excuse himself for his own conclusions with a "well, that's what the numbers say." He doesn't add objective analysis, he is a schtict of arithmetic.

When you say "John Hollinger says" you are saying that a statistical system that John has set up says......In other words, if you are talking about John Hollinger, you are ONLY talking about numbers, as if they are the be all/end all. He gives them the only place in his discussions.

Anyone disagree?

I did notice that ESPN.com has sort of been "hiding" his power rankings so far. You really had to look for them up until the last week or so.

Now that they are sort of taking shape, look for them to be front and center more.

I feel the same way about this thing as I do the pre and early season college football polls, why not wait a few weeks before making yourself look bad by putting garbage out there?

The same reason that they print standings 1 game into the season and announcers throw around a player's "season" stats 3 games in... everyone starts early talking about numbers that don't mean much because the season is young. I think it's assumed that the audience understands to take them with the appropriate truck of salt.

Chauncey is up to #14 in PER
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics

Also, get your hate mail ready
http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=18347

Sheed's at #49.

Hollinger chat is starting now if anyone else is interested.

I sent in a few that he'll never answer.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=18347

Nic (Chicago): Stein and Simmons both thought an Amare trade for Sheed and Maxiel seemed like a great idea. Umm, great idea for Phoenix, but not Detroit? Amare plays bad D and Sheed and Max are way to good to give up for one. Is that totally biased on their part to suggest it?

John Hollinger: (3:27 PM ET ) I disagree 180 degrees. Great for Detroit, who upgrades from Sheed to Amare and can replace Maxiell's minutes with Amir Johnson. Lame for Phoenix, who trades a superstar for a 30-something with an attitude and some added depth.


Rob (Los Angeles): John, whats up with KG? He got off to a fast start and now he's missed double digits in 2 of his last 3 games. Whats the deal?

John Hollinger: (3:29 PM ET ) Yes, he's only been the best player on the league's best team and the unquestioned captain of a shockingly good defense. What's wrong with him?

John Hollinger: (3:29 PM ET ) Sorry for the snark, but gotta keep these things in perspective ... KG is fine.

I agree with Hollinger, the Suns would be stupid to do that deal and we'd be stupid not to.

Guys, I think Hollinger is bukdow.

I don't know. As stupid as Hollinger is, his writing is based on facts and numbers, something bukdow has a habit of ignoring.

Well he spends so much time digesting facts and numbers for ESPN that when he gets here he's just sick of them and tries to avoid them at all costs.

Rob (Los Angeles): John, whats up with KG? He got off to a fast start and now he's missed double digits in 2 of his last 3 games. Whats the deal?
The deal is that Rob thought he lucked out on his fucking basketball fantasy team by getting KG, but now KG is playing team ball with a real fucking team and doesn't have to do 20/12/5 every night. Fuck you, Rob from LA.

Figures he's from LA. Fag.

Hate to break it to you, but we have almost no chance of getting past Boston or Orlando:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds

I'd love to hear his explanation on why he thinks the hawks have a 60% chance of getting into the playoffs but teams like the nets who currently have a better record only have 14% (or like the bulls whom are obviously much better than the hawks and are only 1.5 games back of the hawks have only an 11% chance). Hollinger is truly amazing.

You'll have to read the explanation link. Basically he says this is a completely computer based system based on the play so far, not what anybody thinks will happen. While he's right, I don't see the point in even having it then. It seems like a complete waste of time, since we can all see what the records are.

Hollinger: "Hay guys here's a completely worthless intellectual exercise (plz let me have a job :( )"

Hate to break it to you, but we have almost no chance of getting past Boston or Orlando:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds
So our chance of being the champs is almost the same as San Antonio and Phoenix combined.

I love it.

So our chance of being the champs is almost the same as San Antonio and Phoenix combined.

I love it.

You noticed that too, eh?

Interesting factoids from Hollinger's page:

* Boston has a better chance of coming out of the East than Detroit and Orlando COMBINED.

* The West is wide open, but there's no way in hell that any team in the West can win a Championship this year.

* Dallas has a 0.2 percent chance of having the best record in the West. The Lakers are 8 times more likely. Utah is 86 times more likely.

You missed the best stat, Swami:

Detroit, combined with the ENTIRE Western Conference, doesn't have as good of a chance as Boston does with winning the Championship.

I wish Hollinger worked in Vegas. I could quit work right now and live off of his lines.



(Why does ESPN employ him? He's a joke, everyone knows he's a joke, yet they still pay him. I wonder if he gets to sit at the same lunch table with the other analysts, or if they make him sit at a table all by himself while they throw french fries at him.)

These playoff odds will change every night... they are completely based on the power rankings, which is basically a pretty stupid method.... if a team has a few game winning or losing streak it will completely change the odds.

Basically garbage as far as someone really looking at these numbers to use for betting purpose.

To contrast... if Stein says "We like the Knicks this week because they've been hot lately" ... it doesn't spawn a "Mark Stein is a cunt" thread here. However if Hollinger says the same thing in an equally subjective fashion based on what his opinion is on which numbers shed some light beyond the record... the very idea of having an opinion on stats is regarded as absurd.

The militant "won/loss is the only thing that matters and nobody should discuss any numbers beyond that" strikes me as disingenuous. Honestly, when most of you look at something like a w/l record or a winning streak do you just take it at face value and move on? I doubt it. Some questions like well who have they played? Have they been winning convincingly? What have they done lately? etc... probably enter the discussion.

Given that, why is it a completely idiotic exercise to put up for the sake of discussion rankings that incorporate those very questions? To me it's no more or less ridiculous than a completely number-free gut feeling ranking as fodder for discussion.

Given that, why is it a completely idiotic exercise to put up for the sake of discussion rankings that incorporate those very questions? To me it's no more or less ridiculous than a completely number-free gut feeling ranking as fodder for discussion.

Because there is far too small a data set being analyzed. It's not hard to think of a thousand stats that Hollinger isn't taking into consideration (final score, point distribution among highest scoring players, amount of game time during which the points scored was wildly uneven, etc.) not to mention the fact that there haven't been nearly enough games played this season to judge based simply on wins and losses.

A friend of mine once said that fantasy sports was basically nothing more than Dungeons & Dragons for big fat beer-drinkers. What Hollinger is doing is 1000x more nerdy and worthless.

I confess there's some "Hollinger stats" that I do find interesting - rebound rate and team pace/possessions per game come to mind.

I'm not saying statistics are not important - they certainly are. But when you try to draw conclusions (as Hollinger does) on such a small data sample you run into the land of logical fallacy. If he had posted this page 3/4 of the way through the season, it would have made a lot more sense. But it's December, and that's retarded.

I'm not saying statistics are not important - they certainly are. But when you try to draw conclusions (as Hollinger does) on such a small data sample you run into the land of logical fallacy. If he had posted this page 3/4 of the way through the season, it would have made a lot more sense. But it's December, and that's retarded.

Pretty much sums up my feelings as well (as stated earlier in the thread).

When he was putting power rankings out a week into the season that were largely based on strength of schedule, that's a farce.

Hollinger's cuntmentary is pretty farcical. "better overall team" and "better overall player" are hard to capture at the level of granularity he like to operate at, and it doesn't matter at what point of the season he spews. (Want a dixie cup, Hollinger?) I do like the statistics that try to focus on a particular aspect of the game, though. They're not perfect, but they're better than boxscores sometimes.

Chat at 3 pm
http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=18536

Afflalo is #13 in Rookie PER
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?sort=per&qual=true&pos=rookies&seasonType=2&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics%3fsort%3dper%26qual%3dtr ue%26pos%3drookies%26seasonType%3d2

Chat at 3 pm
http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=18536

Considering joining.

The trick is trying to write something that is benign enough to get posted, yet snarky enough to not make you feel like you sold out.

I have yet to succeed with JH in this regard.

Do you have to have an Insider account to chat with John "God himself" Hollinger?

Guess not.

No.

You can view the whole chat while it's live, but pretty much the second that it is over, they restrict it to Insider subscribers only.

The easiest way (IMO) is to think of a question of which you already know how he will answer and that the answer will only show how one note the guy is.

Like setting the guy up to talk about how great Nazr is Per-48 and how inexplicable it is that none of the now 5 teams he's been on play him enough.

Cool. Thinking about what I can ask him.

maybe "hay john aslpix"

Nice. Do it.

maybe "hay john aslpix"


http://espn.go.com/i/columnists/hollinger_john_m.jpg

Uh, nevermind then.

Maybe I'll ask him if he thinks European sensation Joel Bukdow will ever make it in the NBA.

Anybody else in the chat?

I'm checking in, first question is about the trade


Ray (Detroit): What's your thoughts on the pistons trading Nazr Mohammad for Walter Herrmann and Primoz Brezec?? Seem like this trades means Amir Johnson move up to the Depth Charts.

John Hollinger: (3:08 PM ET ) Seems that way to me too, as Brezec was horrid in Charlotte. Though I give the guy his props -- when the Cats played the Hawks I got there way early to beat traffic, and walked out onto the floor around 4:30 for a 7:00 game, and I see Primoz out there in a full lather working out.
WHERE IS TAHOE?!?!


John Hollinger: (3:09 PM ET ) But I think Herrmann might be the best player in this deal, and it's crazy that a) Charlotte didn't play him, and b) that Detroit unloaded Nazr's contract and still got the best player in the deal. Of course, according to the folks at Guinness the shortest book in the world is entitled "foreign players who have succeed in Detroit", so maybe this won't work out so great for either Fabio or Primoz.

oh, ha ha

I wish my name was Ray.

ROFL @ SMITHSONIAN

lol, John's off to a pretty snarky start, I must say

Fuck, I hate having to refresh.

Am I the only one having problems with the chat?

ESPN ded

Okay, who is this?


MoTown (Charlotte): Do you really think the Bobcats/Piston trade was that lopsided? Nazr has great PER-48 numbers. Don't you think he'll play well for Charlotte?

I've got two in. One from MoTown and one from Tracy(Fl). Lets see if they get any action.

Come on Tracy!

I've got two in. One from MoTown and one from Tracy(Fl). Lets see if they get any action.


Lol


MoTown (Charlotte): Do you really think the Bobcats/Piston trade was that lopsided? Nazr has great PER-48 numbers. Don't you think he'll play well for Charlotte?

John Hollinger: (3:17 PM ET ) I do, actually, and he fills a need, and Okafor can cover for some of his defensive shortcomings. But Detroit got a big wad of cap relief, and like I said I suspect Herrmann might be the best player in the trade.

You told us how it was done, and then you went out there and did it.

I've got a lot to learn about this chat bidnezz.

He won't answer this one, but it was fun to submit:


Langlois (Auburn Hills, MI):
Do you think, as I do, that Rodney Stuckey is the piece that puts "my" Pistons over the top?

Nice. Very inside.

Matt (NYC): I just don't get to see Chris Paul enough on TV, but of what I've seen of Deron Williams, excellent court vision, great dribble, can get into the paint at will, great outside shooter, I look at their numbers and its pretty similar so why do people give Paul the edge?

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:22 PM ET ) Sure, their numbers are similar, if you ignore the part about Paul being ahead in every category.

owned

Mailman,

He wrote a piece on Chris Paul today, so if you can work something in on CP3, he'll probably answer a few of those so he can pimp his article.

omfg answer my fucking question, all I did was ask him if he's a virgin

I told him to work on the eyebrows. That's probably not making it.

Lets see if he'll talk to Bill Simmons.

Answer my question or you're gay.

Jason Kidd questions?

I'm done. I can't handle rejection. :emo kid:

Daniel (Dubai UAE): Greetings Mr. Hollinger, Do you see the rockets getting out of their funk anytime soon? Aside from giving T-mac a heart and back transplant I don't see any easy solutions. Can Brooks help?

Yet I can't get one in? DAMNIT!!

Kobe Bryant: (Laker land): Hey you haven't talked about me or the Lakers, why is that? Can we get Kidd with out giving up my bestest buddy Bynum and Lamar Odom?

loooooool

Seriously. Help us.

Do these people ax questions before the chat even starts?

Tahoe: John, How is that the Bobcats kept the huge talent and hustle god, Brezec under wraps for so long?



John: Tahoe, Great question. Thats what we are all asking ourselves too. His hustle will put the Pistons over the top this year. He's that good.




Tahoe: John, one more quick question. How can I convince the Peeps on WTF about this?



John: Tahoe, You obviously see and know things that regular peeps just can't see. Don't worry about them. They're prolly just a bunch of 'johnny come latelys" anyway.



Tahoe: Thanks John




John: Hey Tahoe, what are doing later?




Tahoe: ahhh, this is getting a little weird John. Go away please!

PaulieP (Scottsdale): I've heard fans here complain that they blew up the Suns in the offseason. Some of the most fickle fans ever.

John Hollinger: (4:03 PM ET ) i guess when you come thisclose to winning and just miss every year for four decades it takes a toll.

ahhhhhhahaha

Anthony (Toronto): Is Jason Kapono the most one-dimensional player in the league?

John Hollinger: (4:04 PM ET ) I actually think Eddy Curry has him beat. At least Kapono can handle and pass pretty well. Curry can score on the block. That's it. There's no other area where he's even mediocre.

Glenn (WTFDetroit): THE MOST ONE DIMENSIONAL PLAYER IS JASON MAXIELL. ALL HE DOES IS DUNK AND EAT BABIES

Mark (NC): Is there any chance that I will wake up and not have Michael Jordan running my local team?

That's a damn good one.

Think he'd answer this one?


John Hollinger: Stop posing as me and get a life, loser.

50/50

Jeez this thing is going on forever. Doesn't Hollinger have ... I don't know ... work or something?

What an asshat. Didn't get to a single question of mine.

WTF? After the chat is over they make it Insider? What a cunt that guy is.

Glenn (WTFDetroit): THE MOST ONE DIMENSIONAL PLAYER IS JASON MAXIELL. ALL HE DOES IS DUNK AND EAT BABIES
OMG, like, that's TWO dimensions GLENN!

Anthony (Toronto): Is Jason Kapono the most one-dimensional player in the league?

John Hollinger: (4:04 PM ET ) I actually think Eddy Curry has him beat. At least Kapono can handle and pass pretty well. Curry can score on the block. That's it. There's no other area where he's even mediocre.
All Shaq can do is score on the block (even in his prime).

Obviously Curry is no Shaq, but if you can score on the block why bother shooting jumpers?

Curry being one dimension is not the problem. Curry not being great at his one deminsion is.

He's a fucking PF/C, that's what he's supposed to do John.

I think the emphasis here is on his lack of rebounding for a 7-foot 280-lb big man.

I think the emphasis here is on his lack of rebounding for a 7-foot 280-lb big man.

True, but if you could dump it down to him and he'd score on %60 of his posessions in the post, nobody would care if he only grabbed 7-8 rebounds a game. You can easily find an energy player to compliment him that does nothing but rebound and defend well.

The real problem is the inconsistant scoring from him IMO.

Shaq could block shots and actually boxed out and played some post-D. Curry (from what I've seen, which isn't much, and what I've heard) has no defensive skills whatsoever. Back when they still had the two guys, if the bulls could have taken Chandler's D and Curry's O and molded them into one player, they would have had a very solid big man, but now they have neither guy.

Now that I think about it, that probably would have made Tyrus Thomas

A few more games into the season, yeah, the ranking is just absurd.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerranking

Hollinger gives us a 52% chance to win the Finals...


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds

he also ranks us #1 in his Power Rankings, ahead of Boston

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerranking

I actually kinda liked reading that (the playoff odds).

1-5 in the West projected to have 60+ wins at best.

Check out the #15 ranked power forward.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?sort=per&qual=true&pos=pf&seasonType=2&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics%3fsort%3dper%26qual%3dtr ue%26pos%3dpf%26seasonType%3d2

Tied with Sheed. Hell yes! That's what happens when you start giving him minutes. Next year I expect to see him as an integral part of our rotation.

From todays chat...first question


Nick (Chicago): Celtics in 5? Did you make that one before the Atlanta series?

John Hollinger: (3:08 PM ET ) Instead of 4-3, look at this number: +84. Boston had an average scoring margin of +12, the best of any team in the first round -- even better than LA did in a four-game sweep of Denver. Boston's four wins were blowouts and the three losses they easily could have won. The first round did very little to change my impression of the Celtics.

Greatest team of All-Time...

I swear he's obsessed with scoring margins, as if it really matters what happens when your scrubs finish a game...

http://espn.go.com/i/columnists/hollinger_john_m.jpg


Danny (New Mexico): So the Celtics can't win close games is essentially what you are trying to say?

John Hollinger: (3:10 PM ET ) No, I'm saying the Celtics lost three 50-50 games. If a coin lands on heads three times in a row, do you assume it's weighted?


^^^I don't get that analogy...

OWN3D


Drew (San Antonio): John, when the Spurs win the series with a margin of +3 will you throw your stupid margin of victory formula in the toilet because this is so ridiculous who cares by how many pts. you lost by. What ever happened to a loss being a loss and a win just a win.

John Hollinger: (3:22 PM ET ) My stupid margin of victory formula was the reason I was picking the Spurs last year when everyone else picked Dallas. Oddly, Spurs fans didn't have a problem with it last year.

Ian (Portland, OR): How does the play at the end of the 3rd cost Orlando the game? They had another 12 minutes to win the game, right? I was under the impression that NBA games had 4 quarters...

John Hollinger: (3:38 PM ET ) It didn't cost them the game in the sense that they still had a quarter to win it and made several hare-brained plays in the last minute, but given the final margin it ended being an enormous play.

I swear this guy is a total fucktard...

John Hollinger: (3:10 PM ET ) No, I'm saying the Celtics lost three 50-50 games. If a coin lands on heads three times in a row, do you assume it's weighted?

No I assume that coin has no clue how to win in Atlanta.

Margin of victory?

I want our 2005 Trophy back. Can you see to it, John?

So if the Cavs are up on Boston by 15 with 3 minutes to play and they play hack a Ben for a minute and get the margain down to 6 points, does that count as half a win?

I swear he's obsessed with scoring margins, as if it really matters what happens when your scrubs finish a game...


The "scrubs finish a game factor" is basically the same across all teams... but margin of victory isn't. In fact, it correlates strongly with winning and the standings tend to bear this out.

I wonder how he feels about the Cavs having a negative differential for the year and still getting the #4 seed?

I wonder how he feels about the Cavs having a negative differential for the year and still getting the #4 seed?

Seriously, and they beat a team with a positive margin in the first round...

Margin is a joke. I like looking at your road record and how you did Vs. the West's elite to decide who's good and who isn't...

I think margain over the 82 games is a decent stat. It shows how difficult your wins are. But, in a playoff series it means jack squat. you can't take a poll of 7 people and say it reflects the rest of America. Just because they might have a blowout game doesn't mean you are suddenly dominant over the other team.

So basically by John Hollinger's logic, the Celtics went 7-0 in Round 1 since they basically could've won each game...

Thats a joke, anybody and everybody knows how embarassing it was for them to be the only series to go 7 games. Your playing a 37 win team, theres no way in fuck any of those games should've even been close...

I wish somebody would assinate him...

He's throwing out bullshit excuses to cover up his "Greatest Team Of All-Time" proclomation and it's really just becoming pathetic.

Can we change the title of this thread to "The Official Hollinger Thread: (Update: Still a Cunt)" ?

I wish somebody would assinate him....
Is that a strange new form of anal sex? SDB, you're the ass expert here, clue me in.

LOL.

If that's the case, I'm sure JH is getting assinated on a daily basis.

lol wow, i just realized that, i should use spell check next time

Is that a strange new form of anal sex? SDB, you're the ass expert here, clue me in.

ANAL expert, don't get it twisted.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y292/xplanesxmistakenx4xstarsx/analrapist.jpg

He's chatting right now if anyone cares: http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=20594

I'll let Glenn post the quote but his argument on Chuancey being out hurting the Pistons is just incredible. Since they lost game 3 when he went out during the game and they had trouble adjusting we should take that into account over the game they DID win without him that they were able to adjust to. Man do I hate Hollinger.

I saw that. He just called Tiago Splitter a flopper. Great.

I just sent him a question as "Manu Flopobili" but I have to run, if he answers it, somebody post it here for me.

Here is all the Pistons related stuff from the chat (I'm sure of it overlaps from above):


Nico (Chicago): Loved your article about the last Pistons-Magic game. Do you see that series ending tonight, and if so, what does that tell you about the rest of Detroit's playoff run?

http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif John Hollinger: Depends on Chauncey. If he plays and plays like himself, I think Orlando's done. If he doesn't play or attempts to play but only hurts the team, then the Magic have a great shot at sending it back to O-town.

Hania (Manhattan): You don't think the Pistons can beat Magic at home tonight, w/ or w/o Billups?

http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif John Hollinger: They could win w/o Billups, but remember before they won Game 4 without him they got absolutely hammered in Game 3. My money would be on Orlando if he doesn't play.

Tyler (Minneapolis): What do you think is due most to Dwight Howard's struggles in the second round?

http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif John Hollinger: I'll give you one big picture reason Detroit has completely neutralized one of his favorite plays. The Magic liike to run a high pick-and-roll, swing the ball to Lewis up top, and then have Howard duck in and post up about two feet from the rim. If he gets it there, good night (Rockets fans, it's basically the same thing your team does with Yao Ming. Call it the Van Gundy Post-up). Anyway, Detroit's bigs have done an amazingly good job of taking this look away by three-quarter fronting Howard, and Lewis isn't a good enough passer to squeeze it into the tiny hole that he's been afforded.

Turkeyleg (Orlando): Was Maxiel in the circle? What do you think about the no-call either way?

http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif John Hollinger: I only saw a couple of replays and thought it was a charge, but I didn't see Maxiell's foot and I was mostly looking at the contact between Prince and Howard on the rebound. That's two of the four games that Orlando might have won if not for a bad whistle; of course you'll get little pity here when you blow a 15-point lead at home to a team missing its best player.

Rudeboy (TX): With all the questions about questionable calls, are the refs doing a terrible job this playoffs? Does this expain the lack of road wins by visiting teams?

http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif John Hollinger: Actually, I think they've done pretty good. The clock thing in Game 2 of Pistons-Magic was the league's fault, not the refs', and we haven't seen any egregiously horrible moments-- there's been a shaky call here and there, but you're going to get that just with the nature of the game.

Charlie(Cambridge, MA): How much do the ABC suits dread a Detroit-Cleveland ECF, followed by a San Antonio - Detroit finals? That must wake them up in a cold sweat, right?

http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif John Hollinger: Pretty much, yes. I don't think Orlando-Utah would have them doing a jig either.

John Hollinger: They could win w/o Billups, but remember before they won Game 4 without him they got absolutely hammered in Game 3. My money would be on Orlando if he doesn't play.
Hard to equate game 3 into this. The adjustment was on the fly, rather than planned out like it was for game 4.

^ Zactly, and...We win WITHOUT Billups on the road, but we can't win without him at home?

What a cunt!

Wow, we got hammered without Billups, that is for sure.

Hollinger says Wade had the best finals, ever:

Full article (http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FinalsPerformances-1)

I'm not really sure how a numbers guy thinks Wade's numbers:

34.7 PPG, 7.8 RPG, 3.8 APG on %46.8 shooting

beats any of these numbers:

36.3 PPG, 12.3 RPG, 3.8 APG on %59.5 shooting (Shaq)
38.0 PPG, 16.7 RPG, 2.3 APG on %61.1 shooting (Shaq)
31.2 PPG, 6.7 RPG, 11.4 APG on %55.8 shooting (MJ)

Hollinger also said in that article that Chauncey should've been the first player ever to win a Finals MVP despite playing on the losing team...


No losing player has won the Finals MVP since the merger, but Billups probably should have. Detroit narrowly lost in seven games, and Billups was the most effective player in the series, averaging 20.4 points and 6.3 assists per game, hitting 40-of-44 from the line and grossly outplaying San Antonio counterpart Tony Parker.

Billups was so effective that San Antonio switched defensive ace Bruce Bowen onto him at the end of Game 7, resulting in one of his few cold stretches -- a badly timed one that allowed the Spurs to claim the series.

You can't be the MVP if your own cold stretch is what lost the series. Hollinger is stupid.

You can't be the MVP if your own cold stretch is what lost the series. Hollinger is stupid.


Kindest thing anybody's said about him in this thread.

Hollinger says Wade had the best finals, ever:

Full article (http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FinalsPerformances-1)

I'm not really sure how a numbers guy thinks Wade's numbers:

34.7 PPG, 7.8 RPG, 3.8 APG on %46.8 shooting

beats any of these numbers:

36.3 PPG, 12.3 RPG, 3.8 APG on %59.5 shooting (Shaq)
38.0 PPG, 16.7 RPG, 2.3 APG on %61.1 shooting (Shaq)
31.2 PPG, 6.7 RPG, 11.4 APG on %55.8 shooting (MJ)

41.0 PPG, 8.5 RPG, 6.3 APG on %50.8 shooting (MJ 1993) beats all of Wade's numbers. :)

Wade probably did have the best finals ever... from the FT line.

41.0 PPG, 8.5 RPG, 6.3 APG on %50.8 shooting (MJ 1993) beats all of Wade's numbers. :)

BUT WHAT ABOUT HIS PER??

What about the opposing player's PER?

What about the fact that John Hollinger is a cunt?

What about the opposing player's PER?

What about the fact that John Hollinger is a cunt?

LOL mxy wins

Seconded.

ESPY Nominee.

Worst Columnist Ever.

08/09 PER rankings are out
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=3055049&campaign=rss&source=NBAHeadlines

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/rankings?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2frankings

Chauncey is #12 overall

Carl fucking Landry is #24 overall

Leon Powe is #30

Amir is all the way down to #57, lol

Stuckey is the 22nd ranked SG on the list.

My boss walked in on me as I was glaring at that post.

Stuckey is the 22nd ranked SG on the list.
Being endorsed by Jim Cuntlinger is not a good sign.


My boss walked in on me as I was glaring at that post.
What does he think of Hollinger?

Read the title of this column by Hollinger and try not to puke.


Hollinger's PER Diem: Nov. 21, 2008

LMAO!

Seeing this thread makes me happy though. What a crock of shit.

Hollinger's PER Die
Sounds about right.

In Hollinger's world, the Pacers and Bucks deserve to be higher than Detroit, SAS, and Utah in a power ranking.

In Hollinger's world, the Pacers and Bucks deserve to be higher than Detroit, SAS, and Utah in a power ranking.


I found his community college thesis paper...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1344/1355436638_43f95b0601_o.jpg

Okay, here's a good one.

Hollinger explains, according to his calculations, that the CAVS have a 20% chance of winning 70 games this year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Perdiem-081205&campaign=rss&source=NBAHeadlines

LOL. BTW, only 4 of the Cavs 15 wins are against teams with a winning record (and NJ is just barely at 9-8).

So they are 4-3 against teams with winning records, and that counts the NJ win (who has only beaten 3 winning teams so far).

Apparently Cuntastic Hollinger missed a few important numbers in his magic formula.

That douche probably just uses their scoring and defense numbers to simulate the games, which doesn't factor strength of opponents at all.

I emailed him:


I saw your article about who might win 70 games this year. You said the Cavs had a 20.8 % chance. I think you are missing something important. They are 4-3 against teams with a winning record and one of those wins is against NJ, who is 9-8 and only has 3 wins against winning teams. So the Cavs have played a bunch of cupcakes...and you think there is a 1 in 5 chance their record will remain that good? LOL

He's such a stand up guy that I'm sure he will write you back.

LOL. BTW, only 4 of the Cavs 15 wins are against teams with a winning record (and NJ is just barely at 9-8).

So they are 4-3 against teams with winning records, and that counts the NJ win (who has only beaten 3 winning teams so far).


and for the sake of your argument, In their win against Utah...Deron Williams, AK47, and Okur were all out...

WE MADE IT BACK TO PAGE ONE!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerranking

It must've been that win over the #12 Milwaukee Bucks that put us over the top. It may not have seemed like much of a win since they are 3 games below .500, but according to Hollinger, we had zero business winning that game.

^ This guy (Hollinger, not you Wil) is a total cunt.

I submitted a comment for the unoccupied Suns slot.


SABER-Metrics works because baseball is a series of one-on-one contests. Even under Rick Carlisle basketball is a team game. JUST STOP.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

We think Hollinger is just misunderstood.

Lawl:

Hollinger has the Bucks FIFTH in his latest power rankings:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerranking

Just for that, Hollinger deserves a party -- right here:

http://www.menarchepartiesrus.com/

^He's an ace at the puberty marshmellow game. (I don't want to know what that is)

YUCK. I don't want to know ANYTHING about that game.

We've fallen back to Page 2 of the infamous Rankings again...

(why?)

We've fallen back to Page 2 of the infamous Rankings again...

(why?)

So after a 7 game winning streak "we" are one rank better than a team with a 14-20 record?

Hollinger is Cuntastic to the core.

Hollinger doesn't believe in wins. He believes in predicted wins.

He gives a lot of weight to margin of victory. :we: win squeakers.

He gives a lot of weight to margin of victory. :we: win squeakers.

If Team A lost 30 close games, and won 10 blowouts, while Team B won 30 close games and lost 10 blowouts, who is the better team?


Originally Posted by John Hollinger

Team A.

LIVE HOLLINGER CHAT!! (http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=24458)

3PM

damnit, he picked Zekyls question...props


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zekyl (Cleveland): With Boston crumbling, Ilgauskas hurting, and putting a royal beatdown on the Magic without Rip, are the Pistons the 'sleeping giant' team in the East?


John Hollinger: (3:25 PM ET ) You've got the sleeping part right. Sorry, but the win streak was smoke and mirrors -- Beating the Clippers, Kings and Thunder by a combined nine points does not suggest impending world domination. Unless Joe has something big cooked up for the deadline I don't think this team will even host a playoff series.

Ok, it's not like the Pistons we're playing that entire win streak with Rip/Sheed or anything...

I swear, I hope Hollinger dies. He has no business working for the world wide leader in sports.

What a fuck.

Am I the only one you submitted a question as? Or were there other WTFD posters you used?

notice he brought up win margin in there.

Of course he did. A team that won one game by 20 then lost two games by 5 to far inferior teams would be ranked way ahead of us.

Losing by 1 last night should help us out a lot.

Losing by 1 last night should help us out a lot.


And the close win negates it all.

A look at the standings on any given day shows a pretty strong correlation between margin of victory and teams that are all around strong with great records. It's not the "whole story" any more than any statistic ever is but it's hard to deny that it's a useful indicator with some value. That value lies primarily in exactly what power rankings are geared to do, looking at who's hot right now.

What I hate the most about Hollinger's rankings, is that it doesn't take into account any injuries...

The whole reason we have had close games on this stretch is because we've been without two starters...yet his Rankings treat it as if everybody's at full strength...

whereas, Steins power rankings takes everything into account

Thats why I wish somebody would just stick a trident through Hollingers chest, because there is far more analysis you can derive from a game than just by looking at the final score...

+/- is by far the most overrated stat in the NBA

Yesterday Chauncey was -11, that figure would suggest that he was literally a liability when he was on the floor despite being his teams leading scorer.

It's a flawed statistic, and it's pretty much the only statistic that Hollinger uses.

That and SOS. And SOS is flawed because it doesn't take into account whether or not you beat the good opponents, it just credits you for simply playing them.

The man is a cunt.

...and yet Stein's rankings and Hollinger's rankings tend not to vary that much from each other.

...and yet Stein's rankings and Hollinger's rankings tend not to vary that much from each other.

Not true. The Pistons are much higher in Steins, whereas the Bucks are much lower as they should be. There are a few major differences.

We differ in what we regard as "major." The pack of teams at the top is roughly the same. A few spots here or there for some of the middling teams... I guess that depends on what your expectations are. Two different rankings using two different methods, I don't expect them to be identical.

For what it claims to do--and that's a fairly important point--it's not bad.

For what it claims to do--and that's a fairly important point--it's not bad.
I didn't comment on this the first time but since you've made the point twice ... how ridiculous is it to use some dumb ass statistical model to convey which teams are the "hottest".

If the guy just used W/L record as his model it would coincide pretty well with Stein's list as well, I would think.

I didn't comment on this the first time but since you've made the point twice ... how ridiculous is it to use some dumb ass statistical model to convey which teams are the "hottest".

If the guy just used W/L record as his model it would coincide pretty well with Stein's list as well, I would think.

How is it more ridiculous to say "here's my opinion on what stats are a good barometer of how dominant a team is" than to say "here's my gut opinion on how dominant a team is?"

Both are simple fodder for discussion/debate yet one is regarded here as a crime against humanity and the other is viewed rationally for the garden variety punditry that it is.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-090123

John's got the Pistons at #20 in his power rankings

He's the stat man, right?

Fucking hell, you can't measure heart or determination with a graph. The sooner fans and gms realise this fact the better.

I went to a game a while back (when Nathan Jawaii was playing for the Cairns Taipans) and it was announced that some scout from the Lakers was at the game. You should have seen some of the players!

LMMFAO - guys that usually are slack on D picked it up, and guys who usually settle for the 18 foot jumper took it to the hoop more often.

All because it was announced that an NBA scout was there! My friends and I just sat there laughing and calling out shit at the players who "turned it on".

Maybe NBA guys turn it on because their woman is in the crowd?
Maybe they turn it on because parents are in town?
Maybe they hate the opposing coach/players?
Or maybe they turn it on because it's a fucking Tuesday and they love playing on Tuesdays?

IF a guy only plays hard every now and then his stats don't mean shit to me. I understand a player can't go all out all the time but at least make some fucking effort to grab that loose ball or run the floor. I've got no time for fuckers who have no "competitive spirit"

^I think that is called Darkitis Milicicious Disease

^I think that is called Darkitis Milicicious Disease


There's no vaccine for it either.

I heard the only real way to treat it was to bitch and moan and go back to playing for soft european teams.

I heard the only real way to treat it was to bitch and moan and go back to playing for soft european teams.
Speaking of which, Hollinger has a new web site up:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10155930-93.html?tag=mncol

Did you see that douche has his crap all over the trade machine now? He projects how many wins/losses will result from the trade.

Yeah, and the only stat it shows is the all important PER.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-090227


Few stories in the NBA this year have been more shocking or sudden than the demise of the Pistons.

Since a late December winning streak, Detroit is just 6-18 and has fallen two games below .500. Though the Pistons still cling to the No. 7 slot on the Eastern playoff board, they have just a 44.3 percent chance of making the postseason in today's Playoff Odds, thanks to a fairly difficult closing schedule.


Included in that schedule are two national TV gigs this weekend, and two near-certain defeats: at Orlando on Friday (ESPN, 7 ET), and at Boston on Sunday (ABC, 1 ET). When the league set up the schedule, these games were supposed to be showdowns between contenders; more likely, they'll serve as barometers of just how far Detroit has fallen.

I've covered the Pistons' struggles in some detail in the Insider Gems, but Detroit's decline has so many layers that it could easily encapsulate several columns. Instead, today I've distilled it down to my Five Big Questions about Detroit. In no particular order:

How Did They Get So Bad So Fast?

Detroit fans all point to the early-season trade of Chauncey Billups for Allen Iverson, and certainly that had a major, major impact. Iverson isn't Billups' equal on either end of the floor; additionally, the trade left Detroit without a true point guard.

However, that's far from the only reason. Detroit's core is aging, and Rasheed Wallace and Richard Hamilton have been notably less effective than in past seasons. The young generation that was supposed to replace them hasn't quite proven up to the challenge -- Amir Johnson can't go more than three trips without fouling; Rodney Stuckey has flamed out over the past month; and Jason Maxiell is strangely unable to get minutes in the frontcourt.

Couple that with a few iffy moves by the usually sage Joe Dumars -- firing Flip Saunders, extending Hamilton for three years and $34 million right as he was starting to show his age and signing Kwame Brown (Seriously? Kwame Brown?) -- and Detroit's ship was already taking on water.

The collapse has been apparent at both ends, but it has been more an offensive phenomenon. The Pistons are 23rd in offensive efficiency and 14th in defensive efficiency as of today.

The interesting part is that they still play the same way, just not nearly as effectively. Detroit's game plan offensively has always been to shoot decently while posting an extremely low turnover rate; the Pistons still have the league's lowest turnover ratio, but now they're mostly firing up bricks, ranking 28th in True Shooting Percentage.

But don't pin all the blame on the changing of the Palace guards -- Detroit's big men aren't pulling their weight either. The Pistons are only 21st in rebound rate, grabbing 49.6 percent of available caroms. For a team that once dominated with its size and depth up front, that's a jarring decline.

Will they fire Curry?

The mutterings have been increasingly loud from the Motor City that not everybody is feeling Curry, who faced a tough transition in taking over a veteran team without ever having been a head coach before. While the resistance doesn't seem as open or vocal as it was with Terry Porter in Phoenix, it's certainly worth noting given the team's recent descent in the standings.

Michael Curry has had a rough first season in Detroit.
Curry has compounded his problems with some strange personnel usage: starting Kwame Brown for a big chunk of the year, trying to play a small-ball lineup while still walking the floor upcourt and consigning Maxiell to the end of the rotation for no apparent reason.

With two losses this weekend, the Pistons would be 6-20 in the past 26 games, and that might get the vultures circling. The maxim in the NBA is that the best time to fire a coach is with an easy stretch of schedule ahead and a couple of practice days available, which is exactly what the Pistons will have next week … so if Dumars is going to make a move, I'm guessing it will be in the next five days.

He may also decide to ride out the season, of course, and he may very well bring back Curry next year; when he hired Curry, Dumars seemed pretty confident this was the guy.

That said, Dumars has already whacked four coaches, and three of them were vastly more successful than Curry. Ironically, that may be the one factor helping Curry hang on: If Dumars blows through coach No. 5, how many high-profile candidates do you suppose will line up to be No. 6?

Of course, all the questions about Curry lead to the next big question:

Why are they playing so slow?

When Iverson was a Nugget last year, his team played the league's second-fastest pace. With the Detroit Pistons, he's playing the league's second-slowest pace. No wonder he's frustrated -- one of the league's most dangerous open-court players is relegated to walking the ball upcourt and coming off pin-downs to get his points.

We don't really know how much of his struggles is coaching and how much is personnel. Certainly the Pistons' four mainstays -- Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, Rasheed Wallace and Antonio McDyess -- have little or no interest in playing up-tempo, making their pairing with Iverson an odd one. On the other hand, wasn't that supposed to be one of the reasons to pick him up, that the Pistons wanted to add a little bounce to their game and get a few easy buckets in transition?

At the very least, the second unit should be able to run. Johnson and Maxiell can get up and down the court and make plays, and reserves like Will Bynum and Walter Herrmann also are comfortable in the open court.

This also sets up an interesting side debate: Today, columnists in both Detroit papers said Iverson should come off the bench and Hamilton should start. Hamilton openly complained about his bench role after Detroit's most recent loss, and there's a logic to it -- Hamilton would be playing with the guys who want to walk it up, and Iverson could play with the guys who can run with him … if they're allowed.

The other part of the pace equation is what has happened at the point. Billups is probably the most methodical point guard in the league, so replacing him with nearly anyone should have resulted in a quickening of Detroit's pace. And Stuckey has looked very comfortable in open-court situations, most notably in the rookie game. Yet, the Pistons still don't run. And their point guard seems unable or unwilling to take advantage of the chances he gets to do so. Which takes us to our next question …

What has happened to Stuckey?

One of the reasons Detroit was heralded for the Billups-Iverson swap was that it would give Stuckey a chance to shine in the backcourt. The logic of this always seemed a little flimsy to me -- it's not obvious how trading a guard for another guard would lead to more opportunities. But Detroit used the trade as a reason to promote Stuckey, and his first month as a starter he was outstanding -- in December, he averaged 15.6 points on 53.0 percent shooting, and in January he bumped the average up to 17.3 points on 47.5 percent shooting.

Rodney Stuckey has fallen off after a fast start.
But this month? Crickets. He's averaging 8.5 points on 35.6 percent shooting, and has 27 points combined in his past five games -- it's as if somebody took him aside and told him that "true point guards" aren't supposed to score and he has taken those words a little too much to heart. (I stress that I have no idea if this conversation actually happened; it's merely what it looks like from the outside.)

Stuckey also has two big problems that are keeping him from being as big a star as the Pistons hope, and he'll need to address at least one of them. The thing that made Billups so effective was that he would kill you even if he shot 35 percent because he spiked it with so many 3-pointers and free throws.

Right now, Stuckey is the exact opposite -- he has to shoot in the mid-to-high 40s to be helpful because he hardly ever makes 3s (18 on the season), and for a penetrating guard who has an overwhelming size advantage on most opponents, he doesn't draw huge numbers of free throws.

And if Stuckey isn't the answer, that leads to the obvious follow-up:

Who's in Detroit next season?

The one positive about Detroit's season is that now Dumars can move on with rebuilding without any second thoughts. Iverson, Wallace and Herrmann have expiring contracts and will undoubtedly move on next year, while McDyess is likely to opt out as well.

(By the way, is any player having more second thoughts than McDyess? He could have taken his money and played for the Nuggets, who are third in the West. He could have signed with Boston or Cleveland after his buyout, almost certainly for more money than he's getting from Detroit. Instead he took a pay cut to watch his team sink into the lottery.) Subtract Will Bynum's team option, add the cap hold for a mid-first-round draft pick, and the Pistons are likely to enter the summer with $18 million in cap space … in one of the all-time great buyers' markets.

There's a chance the Pistons could sign somebody very good at a cut-rate price. There's an equally good chance some team will actually pay them off to take a contract off its hands, much like the Suns did with Kurt Thomas to Oklahoma City two years ago, except with a better player. And the Pistons have enough cap space that they can do this with two $9 million players, or even with three $6 million players.

So next year's Pistons are likely to look a whole lot different. Three of the five starters in the losing streak (Iverson, Wallace and McDyess) won't be around, leaving a Stuckey-Hamilton backcourt with Prince on the wings, Arron Afflalo in reserve, and Maxiell and Johnson likely having one or two new partners up front. They'll also have a first-round draft pick joining them, and as this season circles the drain, it looks like it will be a higher pick than they had expected.

All told, the Pistons should be able to reload with a talented nucleus, a draft pick and a couple of quality free agents. So they really aren't in bad shape going forward. … They just look like it when you see them on the court.

.

That little cunt was pretty :cogent: there, actually.

And the Pistons have enough cap space that they can do this with two $9 million players, or even with three $6 million players.


Didn't this come up just days ago on this site?

I still think the 3 player thing is worth a look, as opposed to Boozer or Bust!

Joe built the team on MLE type players. Why wouldn't he do it again?

You add 3 MLE types, 1 draft pick to Maxiell, Amir, Prince, Rip, Stuckey, Double A and that's 10 guys!

Kwame, Bynum and maybe McDyess (if he wants) make it 13. Throw in a second rounder and that's the squad.

I just can't shake the feeling that Joe would rather have Millsap than Boozer.

I wonder if Cunt Face Hollinger gives a shit about the fact that as much as denver ran, they always fell short against defensive teams because they couldn't play defense? Or the fact that they now play slower with better defense thios year and are probably better than they were when they have IVO.

You add 3 MLE types, 1 draft pick to Maxiell, Amir, Prince, Rip, Stuckey, Double A and that's 10 guys!

Kwame, Bynum and maybe McDyess (if he wants) make it 13. Throw in a second rounder and that's the squad.
Don't forget Walter Sharpe. He's essentially that second rounder you mentioned. I still don't understand why he didn't spend at least half of the season in the D-League learning to play SF. It makes no sense.

A lot of things this season don't make sense.

Allen Has To Outscore Redick

Allen Has To Outscore Redick

Saw that and LOL'd.

Hollinger thinks Chauncey can win another title....






...with the Nuggets

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-090506

Kobe and LeBron might have a thing or two to say about that.

Thay have a legit shot if they play well. I wouldn't make them favorites against either team, but they have a decent chance.

I may be a Detroit homer but he's a moronic piece of shit:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings-Intro

Pacers #9

Pistons #13

Time to lock the thread.

So we lose 50 points for the brawl, but LA doesn't get docked for Kobe's rape case, Kobe vs Shaq feud, etc? Meanwhile Indiana doesn't get docked for the brawl at all.

Teams with no NBA titles above Detroit:
Suns
Utah
Indiana

we have the 3rd most all stars, the 5th most titles, 4th most playoff wins and we're 13th?

what a joke.

Teams with no NBA titles above Detroit:
Suns
Utah
Indiana


Inexcusable.

13. DETROIT PISTONS: 49.19 POINTS PER SEASON (1948-2009)

http://espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nba/med/det.gif Wins: 2,368
Playoff wins: 182
Series wins: 44
Titles: 3
All-Stars: 101
Best player: Isiah Thomas
Best coach: Chuck Daly
Best team: 1988-89 (63-19, won title)
Intangibles: -50. Palace Brawl leaves stain; slow-paced teams lacked excitement.

Detroit, land of stars? Believe it. Only the Lakers and Celtics have produced more All-Star seasons than the Pistons' 101. Whether the team is up or down, it usually has at least one bona fide star. From Dave Bing to Isiah Thomas to Grant Hill to Allen Iverson, the Pistons have almost always had at least one performer who could get fans in the door.
It's ironic, then, that their three championship teams were essentially ensemble casts. While Thomas was unquestionably the leader of the back-to-back winners in 1989 and 1990, between the lines he wasn't the megaton star he had been earlier in his career. Instead it was the likes of Joe Dumars, Dennis Rodman, Bill Laimbeer and Vinnie Johnson that put the Pistons over the top.

FRANCHISE HISTORY

Detroit Pistons (1957-Present)
Ft. Wayne Pistons (1948-57)
In 2004, it was even more the case, as a below-radar Pistons team caught fire after a midseason trade for Rasheed Wallace. Chauncey Billups was the best player, but even he was a Finals MVP before he ever made an All-Star team; yet the quartet of Billups, Richard Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, and Wallace made six straight conference finals visits. Both championship versions of the Pistons weren't always easy on the eyes, relying on a slow tempo and a stout defense to pull them through periodic offensive droughts, and several other Pistons teams were notorious teeth-pullers -- even with Hill, Doug Collins' teams played a slow, grating style. From Daly to Collins to Rick Carlisle to Larry Brown to today, they've basically been an extremely slow-tempo team for 25 years.
You'll excuse Pistons fans for not caring; before the Bad Boys' back-to-back championships, their history was pretty bleak. The franchise had three winning seasons in a quarter-century in Detroit before Thomas and Chuck Daly showed up, and they weren't exactly awash in glory in the Fort Wayne years, either. Though the team made two NBA Finals, one was a fluke after a 37-35 regular season and saw them dismissed in five games.
A more serious shot at a title came in 1955, when Larry Foust and George Yardley helped Detroit tie for the league's best record and pulled them to a 3-2 series lead in the Finals. They lost the last two games to Syracuse, however, including a 92-91 defeat in Game 7 in which they blew a 17-point lead and made two turnovers in the last 20 seconds.
In a sign of the league's prestige half a century ago, the Pistons' home games were held in Indianapolis because the Fort Wayne arena had booked a bowling tournament. Somewhere, Stan Kroenke and Vince McMahon are smiling.

So we lose 50 points for the brawl, but LA doesn't get docked for Kobe's rape case, Kobe vs Shaq feud, etc? Meanwhile Indiana doesn't get docked for the brawl at all.

Teams with no NBA titles above Detroit:
Suns
Utah
Indiana

we have the 3rd most all stars, the 5th most titles, 4th most playoff wins and we're 13th?

what a joke.
So what you're saying is, I'm doing the right thing by not reading the whole article.

FWIW, I tried to post this before Detroitexport did and my laptop mysteriously powered down. My take? It's a sign that God hates Hollinger, too.

His draft thoughts:


For all the activity leading up to the draft on Thursday, there was a weird lack of it in the event itself -- just four first-round picks changed hands, none of which were in the lottery, and there was just one minor trade involving current players.
Nonetheless, there was plenty of intrigue, several head-scratching moments, and a few dramatic slides by highly ranked players. And I'm here to sum it all up with my best and worst of the draft. So let's get right to it:

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

Worst foresight: Minnesota
Just an idea to throw out: You might want to see if a guy is interested in playing for you before you cash in all your chips to get his rights. That's particularly true if said player has enough leverage to spend the next two years making good money playing someplace else.
'Sota was geeked to get two top-six picks but used one of them on Ricky Rubio (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19272), who was clearly crestfallen by the idea of going 26-56 in the frozen tundra for the next half-decade. Even more baffling was that they took another point guard with the next pick, Syracuse's Jonny Flynn (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19160).
Nobody is quite sure what the Wolves' intentions are -- though they insist they're keeping Rubio, teams like the Knicks and Rockets are circling like sharks hoping to relieve Minnesota of a player who seems highly unlikely to suit up for them for at least the next two years. Rubio has a $6 million buyout in Spain and would essentially be playing in the NBA for free. He was willing to do it in New York, and even in Sacramento, but apparently he draws the line at Minnesota.

http://a.espncdn.com/i/nba/draft2009/headshots/19230.jpg
Blair
Best theft: DeJuan Blair (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19230) to San Antonio
I don't understand how a player projected to be a top-15 talent can slide all the way to 37th based on reports about his knees. Here's why: At some point, the injury risk is a "so what." As in, "so what if he can only play for three years, he's so much better than the average 25th pick in the draft that he'd still be worth it."
This a player who absolutely destroyed the second pick in the draft when they went head-to-head. His rebounding numbers are something out of a video game -- I'm not sure NBA personnel people have put together quite how dominant Blair was on the glass in college, but he had a better rebound rate than Blake Griffin (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19213). His offensive rebound rate of 20.5 was double that of most other big man prospects -- the next closest prospect was Santa Clara's John Bryant at 14.4.
But Blair has bad knees, and someday they might catch up to him. In the meantime, the Spurs got a lottery talent for a second-round salary while the rest of the league was drafting Sam Youngs and Taj Gibsons.
http://assets.espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nba/med/trans/nyk.gif (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=nyk)

Worst draft night: Knicks
New York spent $5 million in trades to select Toney Douglas (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19358) with the 29th pick and to acquire center Darko Milicic. Douglas is a 6-foot-2 shooting guard who projects poorly to the NBA, while Milicic is an epic draft bust who isn't going to be suddenly cured by a "system."
I'm not thrilled with what they did at No. 8, either, getting Arizona big man Jordan Hill (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19174). Perhaps all the dysfunction in Tucson kept Hill from performing better, but I suspect the Spurs got a better player at No. 37 than the Knicks did at No. 8. New York needs a point guard, too, but passed on Brandon Jennings (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19261) and Ty Lawson (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19034) in order to take Hill.

http://a.espncdn.com/i/nba/draft2009/headshots/19232.jpg
Green
Best fit: Danny Green (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19232), Cavs
Were it not for San Antonio's theft of Blair, Cleveland taking Green at No. 46 would be the steal of the draft. He's a knockdown outside shooter who hit 42 percent on 3s and 85 percent at the line last season, and he's a solid defender at the wing with good size. My Draft Rater (http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2009/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=DraftRater-090618) had him as the No. 8 college player in the draft, and he should be able to contribute right away.
Moreover, this is exactly what the Cavs need. In addition to their inability to contend with Dwight Howard, their biggest issue in the playoffs against Orlando was a lack of wing talent -- in particular, wing talent that can knock down all the open looks LeBron James creates. Green helps answer that need.
http://assets.espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nba/med/trans/okc.gif (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=okc)

Worst franchise trend: Sonics/Thunder and project centers
B.J. Mullens, I'd like you to meet Robert Swift, Mouhamed Sene and Johan Petro. You're the fourth project center taken by this franchise in five years, and let's hope your career turns out differently.
Of course, this is a different administration in OKC, and Sam Presti certainly has more of a clue than the folks who were making picks back in Seattle. However, the hit rate on project centers is miniscule, especially this late in the draft. Of course, the hit rate on anybody this late in a weak draft isn't great, so perhaps there wasn't much to lose, but one can't help but wonder how Green or Blair would have looked in a Thunder uni.

http://a.espncdn.com/i/headshots/nba/players/65/1727.jpg
Stoudemire
Best trade we can't talk about yet: Amare to Golden State
The "doneness" of this deal varies greatly depending on whom you read, but the most intriguing potential deal of the night had Amare Stoudemire going to the Warriors for Andris Biedrins, Brandan Wright, Marco Belinelli and the rights to No. 7 overall pick Stephen Curry (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19087).
The deal can't be completed until July 8 because of Biedrins' base-year compensation status and there likely would have to be some heavy scrutiny of Stoudemire's medical records on the Golden State side, but it would give us our sixth blockbuster trade of draft week.
http://assets.espn.go.com/i/teamlogos/nba/med/trans/nor.gif (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=nor)

Worst upside: Hornets taking Darren Collison (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19079) at No. 21
Let's say Collison is better than the Hornets ever imagined, and that he's able to contribute immediately and play at a high level. You know how much he's going to play? Eight minutes a game. The Hornets used a first-round pick on a backup point guard who is guaranteed to hardly play, even though they had a glaring need in the frontcourt and (beating dead horse now) Blair was just sitting out there waiting for them.
You can get a backup point guard to play eight minutes and not kill you for the veteran's minimum -- just make a call to somebody like C.J. Watson or Chucky Atkins on July 1 and you're done. But the draft is a team's one chance to get cheap frontcourt talent, and nobody is more desperate for cheap frontcourt talent than the luxury-tax threatened, bench-depleted Hornets. Instead, they punted a great opportunity.

http://a.espncdn.com/i/nba/draft2009/headshots/19034.jpg
Lawson
Best use of a future pick: Ty Lawson, Nuggets
Denver had been dangling the future pick it had from the Bobcats for the past year hoping to net a frontcourt talent -- David Lee and Jeff Foster were among those in its sights at the trade deadline. That didn't work out, so instead the Nuggets used it to grab Lawson when he unexpectedly fell to No. 18, giving the team a true backup point guard and providing a clear line of succession for Chauncey Billups.
Lawson rated as the top player on my Draft Rater after a stellar season in which he led North Carolina to the national title; meanwhile, the Nuggets got some money to help pay him (and Chris Andersen) by selling the 34th pick for $2.25 million.

http://a.espncdn.com/i/nba/draft2009/headshots/19351.jpg
Thornton
Worst use of a future pick: Marcus Thornton (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19351), Hornets
As you can probably tell, I wasn't a big fan of the Hornets' draft moves. After taking Collison at No. 21, they traded two future second-rounders to Miami -- in 2010 and 2012 -- for the rights to take Thornton 43rd.
The "I'll give you two later for one now" ploy is rarely sensible, and it certainly isn't for a player who didn't grade out highly either statistically or athletically. And besides, the Hornets already have too many wing players. Color me puzzled.
Best subplot: Pritchard vs. Morey in the battle of second-rounders
It isn't draft day unless Rockets GM Daryl Morey and Blazers GM Kevin Pritchard take part in multiple deals involving second-round picks, and they lived up to their history again this year. In a quiet night by his standards, Pritchard traded up seven spots to get one pick, and traded two future second-rounders in a deal to move up two spots in the first round. He also quietly shed nearly $2 million in salary and cap holds for free agency this summer, mostly by dealing Sergio Rodriguez to Sacramento.
Morey responded by spending roughly $6 million -- a midlevel exception's worth of Les Alexander's dough -- to acquire three second-round picks in Jermaine Taylor (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19353), Chase Budinger (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19026) and Sergio Llull (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19364). "We targeted JT, Chase and Sergio as worth significant resources to obtain," Morey tweeted afterward. Llull will likely stay overseas for another year or two while Budinger and Taylor should be on the roster.
Best of the rest:
• Loved Dallas' draft, getting Rodrigue Beaubois (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19186) and Nick Calathes (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19153).
• Detroit also did well getting Austin Daye (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19214), a star talent at No. 15, and DaJuan Summers (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19172) and Jonas Jerebko (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19303) early in the second round.
• Hated Chicago's draft, getting another stringbean 4 in Taj Gibson (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19121) and an undersized one in James Johnson (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19309).
• Didn't mind OKC taking James Harden (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19221) over Rubio, because it's hard to ignore the Thunder's glaring need for shooting and wings.
• I love Tyreke Evans (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19259) as a player but am incredibly dubious about his ability to play the point and suspect he'll be a full-time shooting guard within two years.
• Picks 8 through 14 in this draft will combine to play in zero All-Star games.
• My highest-rated undrafted players were UAB's Paul Delaney (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19438) and Turkish big man Oguz Savas (http://insider.espn.go.com/nbadraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2009&playerId=19440).

08-09 PER of current Pistons. League average being 15.0

Brown - 11.57
Bynum - 17.52
Gordon - 17.01
Hamilton - 16.93
Maxiell - 15.88
Prince - 15.09
Stuckey - 14.83
Villanueva - 18.64

Funny that Stuckey is only better than Kwame Brown.

Funny as in depressing or funny as in pathetic?

Both? You could defend him with 2nd year, Curry, and the AI situation. He'd better prove that those were legit excuses this season or we're screwed for quite a while.

lets get Adonal Foyle, he's got a better PER than all of our guys

At least he's better than Kwame.

The depressing thing is that this thread has lead to people actually talking about Cunt as though anything he says matters.

FWIW, I think PER is interesting and that's about it.

On an unrelated note, I learned today that Hollinger is Canadian!

The PER stuff popped up while I was doing a search for something else. I thought it was interesting at best. It doesn't matter in the slightest.

He just made me laugh.


Eugene (North Hollywood, CA)
How long did it take to make a system that reflects your hatred for every player/team in the league?

John Hollinger (3:40 PM)
Eons, honestly. I had to channel my hate for every team and player at the same time just to come up with a formula this evil. It's not easy, but with liquor and patience it can be done.

Also, where is Zekyl?

His playoff predictor says we'll get the #7 seed!

Pistons nation rejoices!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds

5% chance to get to the Finals!

We have a better chance at the championship (2.5) than we have to win the division (2.4)!

This is great news!

That seems right.

I like how 38 wins is good enough for #7.

HIRED.

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1768241

Hollinger IS the Grizzlies advanced stats department!

Time will tell is he was worth hiring but in the short term I think this is great! I don't have to read anymore of his bullshit :)

it's smart for any small market/ low budget team to use advanced stats. they need to get more bang for their buck, and they aren't going to get any of the big no brainer star free agents either.

It's smart for every team to use advanced stats...

if the majority of the league is doing it and you're not you're at a disadvantage, regardless of how much stock you put in the data.

It will be interesting to see how far down the rabbit hole the Grizz will go now they have someone in the Advanced Stats department...

It's smart for every team to use advanced stats...

if the majority of the league is doing it and you're not you're at a disadvantage, regardless of how much stock you put in the data.

It will be interesting to see how far down the rabbit hole the Grizz will go now they have someone in the Advanced Stats department...

eh, i don't know that it wouldn't just be a waste of money for LA, NY and Miami.
Do you really need advanced numbers to tell you that signing LeBron, Wade and Bosh is a good idea?
If you don't give a fuck flying fuck about luxury tax does it really matter if the 9th man is just as productive for 2 million as someone who coulda been got with 1 million?

I mean, don't get me wrong, i don't think it'd hurt anybody. Yet for a team like the Grizzlies it definitely makes more sense to focus even more on that. Kinda like the Oakland Athletics (if you haven't seen Moneyball, I recommend it).

Of course I've seen Moneyball

The point I was trying to make is that regardless of budget/location getting into advanced stats can't hurt. You want to be on a level playing field with everyone else and if the majority of teams have a reasonable advanced stats department you should too. At worse you are keeping up with the Jones'... at best you can un-earth some interesting data

The numbers IMO don't mean much - it's how you look at them. You have 5 guys on the floor at all times. How they mesh and gel and compliment each other can't really be shown by the numbers until after the fact. I believe 82games.com has a section where you can see the combined plus/minus for line-ups... but all that data is "discovered" after they've played together.

IF someone could take existing data from individual players and work out how they could work together in a certain offensive/defensive system BEFORE they've played a minute together then they'd have a huge advantage over other teams. IF that was possible to work out a team with that knowledge would be able to focus on players that DO fit, as opposed to signing/acquiring players they HOPE will fit.

The difference between KNOWING and HOPING is huge, especially when the vast majority of the league is spending between $60-70 million... if you're one of the teams that KNOWS who fits with who then ALL your budget is being spent on players that fit while your opposition are spending money on some players they HOPE will fit.

The difference might be $10 million in player salaries... but you're spending that on guys that fit while others are spending it on guys who don't! That could be huge

The dude Jordan hired for Charlotte (Cho?) is/was attemtping to come up with this kind of thing - a "predictor" if you will... a program that can take existing data and piece it together with other "known" data and come up with a team that works well together.

It all sounds very interesting - time will tell if it's even possible or if it's just a pipe dream of stat gurus that hope that their work can replace all the old fashioned basketball knowledge.

On Moneyball: The GM had been a player! The guy was told from a young age how great he was going to be... but (I thought) he always had some doubts... and then when he moved into management he always had that "splinter in his mind" that the scouts really didn't know shit.. they just thought they knew, thought they had a clue...

Stats don't lie. A guy shoots what he shoots, rebounds what he rebounds, blocks what he blocks. But numbers aren't everything either. Even on the worst team some dude is rebounding the ball, scoring, stealing, assisting etc.

This new business of having cameras above the court that track everything is amazing IMO. What they do with the data it produces will tell the tale though

http://www.3sob.com/december-2012/david-berri-educates-us-on-john-hollinger/5515/

3) We’ll try to be delicate here but why is his system inferior in your opinion to your own?

These two questions are related — and I will try and be diplomatic.

When I started looking doing economic research with NBA statistics I needed a measure of player performance that connected what a player did on the court to team wins. Although measures like PER — and NBA Efficiency — are popular, these measures are not highly correlated with team wins (as I have shown in published research).

So, I set out build a model connecting a player’s box score statistics to team wins. The result of this effort is Wins Produced, a measure that translates all the numbers we see in the box score into each player’s production of wins.

The big difference between Wins Produced and PER is that the former is based on a model connecting each factor in the box score to team wins. In other words, the value of factors like offensive rebounds, steals, or turnovers is based on a statistical model connecting each of these variables to how many wins we observe.

When Hollinger describes how PER was constructed he doesn’t really argue that the weights he assigned reflects how that particular factor impacts outcomes (and he certainly doesn’t provide evidence that his weights reflect actual outcomes). What he does is choose weights that seem to make sense to him. And what seems to make sense to him leads to a measure that confirms what people tend to think about NBA players.

As a result, we see two clear problems with PER.
• A player who shoots better than 30% from two point range (and even less from three point range) can increase his PER by simply taking more shots. So PER rewards inefficient shooting.
• Consequently – because inefficient shooting does not translate into wins — measures like PER do a very poor job of explaining team wins.

As a result, it doesn’t appear that PER is a very good measure of a player’s actual contribution to outcomes.

PER is highly correlated with Game Score (Hollinger’s simple box score metric) and NBA Efficiency. Each of these measures overvalues inefficient scoring and does a poor job of explaining wins. But all three do a very good job of explaining a free agent’s salary (something also noted in published research).

This indicates that PER is a statistical measure that captures perceptions of value in the NBA. For example, PER tells us that players like Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony are really very good. And therefore both should get paid large sums of money (and Hollinger once thought that these two combined on the Nuggets would lead to a title contender). That's why John Hollinger is a cunt.