Mo Williamses and Wally Szczerbiaks
Mo Williamses and Wally Szczerbiaks funny as tbh... hollinger knows his .
In a perfect world, I'd love to see Spurs with 0 AS, Pop saying yeah but bo thanks for the coaching job in a "I have better things to do" style and a fifth ring at the end of the season in a " you Stern" style.
The ending was just bizzare well what could we except from gayllinger
You people are way too obsessed with the whole All-Star thing. Who really gives a damn about a popularity contest that is decided by casual fans and the Chinese?
Westbrook is overrated. He is shooting almost 10% less than Tony. He constantly misses open teammates. His stats are are volume related. This guy finishes around the rim worse than Tiago. He single handily lost the Heat game for the Thunder. He missed at least 5 shots right at the rim and missed numerous open teammates for easy shots. Basically, if he can't dunk inside he misses.
Based on Tims play this season he is not an all star. His has been horribly inconsistent. The number of 6 point/5 rebound type games he has had this season is probably more than his previous 12 seasons combined. I do feel his impact is much greater than his stats reflect and I also feel he will turn his game up come playoff time. But based on what he has produced he is not an all star (and he isn't even close to it imo).
Tony and Manu are fringe all stars, with Manu probably making the team. Its the price you pay for playing guys such reduced minutes, it will be worth it come playoff time though.
what i dislike about hollinger is that he bases everything on quan ative measures and nothing at all on qualitative measures. this is why he often ranked players such as bowen so poorly or even gives ginobili marginal status at best. math can not see the game. and hollinger, unfortunately, looks at hoops solely through these glasses.
They actually think we care if make the all-star team?
Tim doesn't even want to go!
I'm pretty sure Hollinger uses advanced stats when he compares the players' output.
Overall, I think Hollinger makes some good points. You may not agree with him on everything, but I think you can see why he thinks what he thinks. One thing that bugged me a little (I may not have read the article thoroughly enough, though) was that he didn't seem to be clear enough on whether he actually wants the best players on the All Star team or rather the most entertaining ones.
I'm sorry, but it is ridiculous to suggest having an "All Star Team" that does not include a SINGLE PLAYER from the team with the best record in the NBA. That is downright insulting and offensive. you, Hollinger.
Duncan may wind up snubbed because he's got the third best numbers on the Spurs, but he probably won't. My guess is Parker is the one who winds up snubbed. Maybe he'll get to go for the skills challenge as a consolation prize. But at least 2 of the big 3 for SA will be going to the All Star game is my guess, because the coaches have NEVER been as stupid as Hollinger makes himself out to be in this article.
so true
Hollinger's model doesn't account for several factors. Take Parker and let him have the ball in his hands as often as Westbrook (in other words, stop making him share playmaking with Manu). He will average 20+ points and probably another assist or two. And he will mirror Westbrook and the other point guards favored ahead of him.
And the Spurs will have several more games in the loss column, just like those other teams.
It's a way to punish all stars for sacrificing individual statistics for the benefit of the team. Wins should matter as must as assist and scoring averages.
Wrong.
That's advanced stats 101. You don't pay attention to per game numbers for the very reasons you stated.
Hollinger is obsessed with making sure not to overvalue per game numbers. Read his take on Monta Ellis.
Essentially the Spurs get punished for being a balanced squad with a lot of guys who can contribute to their success. I'd bet they can live with that. Hopefully none of the Spurs get named to the ASG. That would be awesome. Talk about motivation!
when you look at numbers or boxscores without context you have choices like these ...yes Hollinger's system eliminates bias ...but if you watched the Lakers play the past month you would be hard pressed to choose Pau over Lamar ...much less over Nene or Duncan.
FAIL from Trollinger
But since Pau is the "MVP of the Lakers ...i guess he should get the nod ...LOL
I think Stern would like the coaches to pick either Duncan or Griffin, so he can select the other in. But if they don't, he will always give Duncan the respect he deserves, and will be in line with his last year call on Jason Kidd.
Funny thing is, if Duncan is in the ASG, he might get the start.
I don't really understand how a stat guy could seriously claim that KG is the most imposing defender at his position while simultaneously making a case against Duncan.
Yeah, we were discussing this in the other thread downstairs. Certainly a glaring example of hypocrisy and inconsistency on Hollinger's part.I don't really understand how a stat guy could seriously claim that KG is the most imposing defender at his position while simultaneously making a case against Duncan.
Duncan and KG have comparable PERs, though Duncan leads KG by a sizeable margin in the estimated wins added (EWA) category - a category that Hollinger prioritizes the most out of all variables that factor into PER.
Maybe if Hollinger wasn't so glowing in his review about KG or so harsh in his criticism against Duncan, I wouldn't have minded as much. He might still have been able to rationalize Duncan off the team due to the West's PF/C depth (relative to the East's). His exaggerations both ways for Duncan and KG are misplaced. I agree.
Wrong
While the PER is adjust for minutes played and pace it does not consider the usage rate. Moreover it rewards volume shooting
The quote bellow (found on Wikipedia) is from Dave Berri (I will trust him on the math).
So yes, Westbrook (among others) have his PER inflated by his 30+ usage rate. Or if you prefer, Ginobili and Parker have their PER limited for sharing the ball more."Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA player does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots."
Illustration:
Wade+Lebron+Bosh PER:
2009-2010:84.1
2010-2011:71.9
Back to Westbrook:
Lowest True Shooting% of PG in the top 10 53% (Parker 57%).
Low assist ratio (25.3, Parker is at 28).
Highest (with Rose) USage Rate of PG in the top 10 (30, Parker 24)
Don't tell me his per is not inflated by the number of possessions he uses.
That being said, I don't believe he should include the usage rate in his PER.
1) It is already complex enough
2) It would inflate the PER of non-scorers (rebounder don't use possessions, passers use possession only when the shooter makes his shot...)
3) A player have the ball in his hand more for a reason (Bonner has a very good PER/UsageRate ratio because basically he is not doing much)
4) Someone has to put the ball in the hoop (volume shooting is not always a bad thing)
PER gives a good idea about a player production but you can't just rank players with it without considering other things (including team success).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote