Hollinger writes two articles on the Hornets

[ShoogarBear]

Not worthy of the cutting and pasting trouble, but :lmao

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=SpursHornets_080520

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=hornetsbench7_080520

[ShoogarBear]

Eh, wrong forum.

[CubanMustGo]

Eh, right forum, NO is just another NBA team now. But pretty funny.

[ratm1221]

"And sometimes, that's the story in the NBA -- one team makes its shots and one team misses."

:lmao

Finally figured out SpursDynasty's true identity! He's Hollinger!

[Cry Havoc]

Indeed, New Orleans held San Antonio to just 40 points after the break -- only 34 if you exclude six points in the final 41 seconds that came as the result of intentional fouling. The Spurs shot 27.8 percent for the half and recovered only five of their 26 misses. That type of defensive effort was consistent with the way the Hornets slammed the door on San Antonio after halftime in the other three games.

What changed was a miserable 15-for-40 second-half shooting effort by New Orleans.

This is some of the most incompetent writing I've ever seen on espn.com, and that's saying a lot. Could he be ANY more homerific?

So let's see, when the Spurs shoot poorly, it's a result of the Hornets swarming defense.

When the Hornets shoot poorly, it's just bad luck, or poor shot selection -- it has nothing to do with the Spurs being a great defensive team since the early 90s and a top 3 defense for the past decade.

Yep. Hollinger's statistics were off not because he inaccurately predicted them, but just because one team missed it's shots. Maybe that's why they play the freaking game instead of determining the outcome on your cute little stat-sheets?

And, Holly, since you've so magnanimously picked the Lake Show in 5 let me just say:

WE TOLD YOU SO!