Here's your chance to learn about PERs :hollinger: and maybe even the next can't-miss NBA phenom :chad: .

http://adimages.go.com/ad/sponsors/PHILLIPS/Sep_2006/phi0-200x46-0001.gif

http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/sportindex?sport=nba

hollinger's an idiot. just my humble opinion of course.

but he seems to think his formula is the be-all end-all way to judge talent. IMO it sucks, so does his 'insight'.

no offence to you of course glenn .

hollinger's an idiot. just my humble opinion of course.

but he seems to think his formula is the be-all end-all way to judge talent. IMO it sucks, so does his 'insight'.

no offence to you of course glenn .
Bear in mind that this rating is not the final, once-and-for-all answer for a player's accomplishments during the season. This is especially true for players such as Bruce Bowen and Trenton Hassell who are defensive specialists but don't get many blocks or steals. - John Hollinger

yeah but he does seem to act like his ratings tell the whole tale, with the way he keeps harping on them.

It was 'nice' to read that our two newest Piston FAs are in Sheridan's top 5 of the "buyer's remorse" category, though.

I've had insider for a year or so now and they completely messed it up. They used to have a bar down the right-hand side that listed my favorite teams from each sport. I loved it. It had all of the ESPN articles about the Wings, Pistons, Tigers and Pussycats listed along with all of the local articles. Then all of a sudden the changed it and put it in a little box down at the bottom. After about two months that box disappeared and I lost all of my favorites. That was my favorite part of my work day. Silly ESPN, bring back my sidebar!

hollinger's an idiot. just my humble opinion of course.

but he seems to think his formula is the be-all end-all way to judge talent. IMO it sucks, so does his 'insight'.

no offence to you of course glenn .

None taken, I was being a bit sarcastic.

yeah but he does seem to act like his ratings tell the whole tale, with the way he keeps harping on them.

Yeah, he puts in the necessary limitation statements like any good statitician, but he definately doesn't write about his stuff like its "just another tool used for comparison".

That's because Hollinger's tool came up short... that's what she said.

Yeah, he puts in the necessary limitation statements like any good statitician, but he definately doesn't write about his stuff like its "just another tool used for comparison".Or it just could be because it's what he is paid to do. Hollinger's whole point on ESPN is the discussion of basketball using APBRmetrics, and especially his own formulas (PER, PPR, etc.). I'm really not sure what else anyone expected from him.

Or it could be because his whole objective is to pump his own calculation to sell his books in a misguided and ultimately fruitless attempt to paint himself as the Bill James of basketball.

What else people expect? I expect honest portrayal of a seriously limited creation. I can't speak to what you expect.

I admit I like his rebound rate statistic, mostly because the rebound rate rings very true over time (unless you have a particularly willing or unwilling rebounder paired up with you, like Cliff Robinson).

Or it could be because his whole objective is to pump his own calculation to sell his books in a misguided and ultimately fruitless attempt to paint himself as the Bill James of basketball.That's pretty odd, considering he didn't even publish a book for this season.


What else people expect? I expect honest portrayal of a seriously limited creation. I can't speak to what you expect.http://www.wtfdetroit.com/forums/showpost.php?p=148252&postcount=3
I expect people to take a guy's own words more seriously than some random messageboard knob. If you choose to ignore something he says, believe that because he constantly mentions PER that it is the Holy Grail of basketball(certainly not because it's what he is paid to do), and buy 5,000 copies of his old forecast books, that's your own problem.

That's pretty odd, considering he didn't even publish a book for this season.
Yes, because this season is the only one in which he's pumped his metrics as though they were God's gift and he never did it in 03, 04, or 05, when he did release books.



http://www.wtfdetroit.com/forums/showpost.php?p=148252&postcount=3
I expect people to take a guy's own words more seriously than some random messageboard knob. If you choose to ignore something he says, believe that because he constantly mentions PER that it is the Holy Grail of basketball(certainly not because it's what he is paid to do), and buy 5,000 copies of his old forecast books, that's your own problem.
Other than calling me a knob, I'm not sure this section makes any sense at all. Particularly this statement "If you choose to ignore something he says, believe that because he constantly mentions PER that it is the Holy Grail of basketball". Though I agree that he's always talking about PER as though its the Holy Grail of basketball.

And why are you linking to one of your previous posts in this very thread? Here (http://www.wtfdetroit.com/forums/showpost.php?p=148190&postcount=1), this one links to Glenn's post!

At least we can all agree that Hollinger is a comedic genius.


Ben (Silver Spring, MD): Let's not forget Kobe acting like a 12-year old after the game and calling out Arenas for taking bad shots ... talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!

John Hollinger: Yes, that was a bit jarring. I was waiting for Kwame Brown to follow it up by calling Jarvis Hayes a bust.

Yes, because this season is the only one in which he's pumped his metrics as though they were God's gift and he never did it in 03, 04, or 05, when he did release books.It's his fucking job to "pump" those stats (and by pumping, I assume you mean write a single weekly basketball column). What the fuck do you not get about that? ESPN doesn't pay him to just "talk basketball". They have like 6 fucking guys who do that. If you're going to read a John Hollinger article and expect him not to do some quantam analysis then you're missing the whole fucking point of his article. It'd be like your mom not "pumping" her unmatched fellatio skills.


Other than calling me a knob, I'm not sure this section makes any sense at all. Particularly this statement "If you choose to ignore something he says, believe that because he constantly mentions PER that it is the Holy Grail of basketball". Though I agree that he's always talking about PER as though its the Holy Grail of basketball.I wasn't calling you a knob specifically, not that you don't fit that description. It's also not going to make much sense when you cut half of it off. Basically, if you read his article and somehow assume that his PER formula is the be-all end-all of basketball performance, regardless that the man himself has stated it isn't, then you're probably a fool and your mom gives fantastic BJs.


And why are you linking to one of your previous posts in this very thread? Here (http://img42.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=th_54988_mom_123_512lo.jpg), this one links to a picture of my mom![smilie=master_emot:

It's his fucking job to "pump" those stats (and by pumping, I assume you mean write a single weekly basketball column). What the fuck do you not get about that? ESPN doesn't pay him to just "talk basketball". They have like 6 fucking guys who do that. If you're going to read a John Hollinger article and expect him not to do some quantam analysis then you're missing the whole fucking point of his article. It'd be like your mom not "pumping" her unmatched fellatio skills.
Note, just because its his "fucking job" doesn't mean he's not an ass for pumping it. Plenty of people are payed to be asses, just turn on any of the numerous cable news channels for more evidence of this. No, by pumping I don't mean writing a single article a week. I mean publishing books, writing for a major internet sports site, hosting "webchats", and contributing to message boards where the only thing the dude considers is his arbitrary collection of weights and measures. And no I'm not asking him to do anything other than his BASIC STATISTICS, but I am asking him to treat them as the very mediocre rating system and perspective tool that they are. As for my mom's fellatio skills, you'd have to ask my father about that.


I wasn't calling you a knob specifically, not that you don't fit that description. It's also not going to make much sense when you cut half of it off. Basically, if you read his article and somehow assume that his PER formula is the be-all end-all of basketball performance, regardless that the man himself has stated it isn't, then you're probably a fool and your mom gives fantastic BJs.
That makes perfect sense except that I didn't cut anything out of your quote. I quoted the whole posts. Its your random cramming of multiple half-thoughts into a single sentence that makes it incoherent. And if you read his articles, chats, books, and the website message board he frequents and you don't come back with the realization that the guy is far too hung up on a stat compilation that doesn't accurately predict nor describe anything meaningful then I question your reading skills as much as your writing. Again, as to my mom and her oral ability you'd have to ask my father, or if you like I can hook you up with her digits.