Reply With Quote
No
Hollinger expects a sharp decline in Odom's production
Originally Published: November 28, 2011
Odom had a career season at age 31. That's the good news. The bad news is he is one of seven players whose stats can be expected to sharply regress this season, based on a phenomenon called the Fluke Rule. While these seasons are not all flukes per se, the rule of thumb still holds: Any player past the age of 28 whose player efficiency rating (A) jumps by more than three points in a season and (B) is above 14 will see his PER regress the next season, on average, by roughly the same amount. The odds are better than 90 percent that his PER will go down, and in many cases the decline is steep.
This is particularly true for players like Odom that are on the wrong side of 30 and had never played this well previously. Odom's PER last season was a career high because he shot the lights out both in the basket area (70.2 percent) and on 3-pointers (38.2 percent). However, based on his career norms he seems unlikely to sustain such lofty percentages.
As a reminder, here's how last year's Fluke Rule class fared (see chart). While it rarely works out this neatly across the entire group, the mean Fluke Rule player will lose three points on his PER the following season. (Nice Fluke Rule players are similarly affected).
Fluke Rule, Class of 2009-10
Player 2008-09 PER 2009-10 PER 2010-11 PER Change
Corey Maggette 16.91 20.40 15.89 -4.51
Jamal Crawford 15.15 18.50 14.29 -4.21
Nazr Mohammed 7.71 19.64 15.98 -3.66
Ben Wallace 12.18 15.84 12.29 -3.55
Sam Dalembert 13.22 16.84 14.10 -2.74
Luke Ridnour 12.95 17.81 15.08 -2.73
Carlos Boozer 17.28 21.42 18.90 -2.52
This year, the other seven players joining Odom in Flukeville are Brad Miller, Tony Allen, Chris Andersen, Earl Boykins, Tyson Chandler, Tony Parker and Chris Wilcox. Miller may not play this year after having microfracture over the summer, but of the other seven we can expect six to decline. Parker and Chandler, who were 28 years old on Dec. 31 of last season, are slightly less susceptible than their older cohorts, but all will be hard-pressed to maintain last season's production
Fluke Rule, Class of 2010-11
Player Team 2009-10 PER 2010-11 PER Change
Chris Wilcox Det 12.04 18.09 +6.05
Tyson Chandler Dal 12.58 18.45 +5.87
Earl Boykins Mil 12.98 17.62 +4.64
Tony Allen Mem 14.23 18.40 +4.17
Tony Parker SA 16.49 20.44 +3.95
Lamar Odom LAL 15.98 19.50 +3.52
Brad Miller Hou 12.96 16.37 +3.41
Chris Andersen Den 15.88 19.03 +3.15
While the eight players in this season's crop run the gamut from "no freaking way he does that again" (Wilcox) to "potential glaring exception" (Parker), Odom represents a fairly typical Fluke Rule player and it's clear how his numbers could fall back to earth. Last season he blew away his career highs in field-goal percentage, 3-point percentage and TS%. If those revert back to his usual levels -- which is nearly always what happens -- his PER will come along for the ride. The result would still leave Odom as one of the most effective sixth men in the game because of his defense, rebounding, ballhandling and not insignificant scoring. But it's unrealistic to expect him to shoot 70 percent at the rim and drill 38 percent of his 3s.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...files#reserves
No
Yeah, older players sometimes regress who woulda thought. But he is in no way accurately predicting anything, this is totally hit and miss. For example, his rule should have applied to JET for the past several years according to his criteria but it didnt. Jet just kept performing and got even better in his old age, as do some other players. Whole thing is flawed.
Lakers' FO must have insider.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Yeah he also predicted Blazers in 4, Lakers in 6, Thunder in 6, and Heat in 5 if I remember correctly. He's good!
What's it to you...By then you'd already quit.
and in a few short months you'd suffer The Mistake and The Non-Endorsement.
You stormed off though, cussing Chandler, et al the entire way.
It was wonderful that my Luva spent some time in the stacks finding that beauty.
Exactly. But never once did I quit. And little did you know a few months later the sandwiches known as The Mistake and The Non-Endorsement would be shoved into your piehole.
A course you quit. In broad daylight, daddy. At the top of your lungs, in big bold black letters.
Never once did the word "quit" show up in that post.
"I'm done." equates to I quit.
You quit.
"I'm done" can mean a lot of things. I'm done having high hopes. I'm done trusting the Mavs front office. I'm done with defending the decisions of the team. It never meant that I quit on them.
"I'm done" is open to interpretation, something you've no room trying to interpret since you failed so miserably trying to interpret Kori's message, resulting in The Mistake and the subsequent The Non-Endorsement.
Perhaps, but, in this case "I'm done" means you quit.
And daddy, you're livin' with this.
This, I vow.
You've no room to make that call. Pe ion Mrs. Ellis herself to make that judgement, or shut yer yapper, the same yapper that committed The Mistake which led to the humiliation of The Non-Endorsement.
Not qualified. She jumped the shark last evening.
You quit. And you're livin' with it.
And that's just the way it's gonna be.
After The Mistake, neither are you. Pe ion Mr. Ellis then. But you ain't makin this call, daddy-o. Nuh uh. Not after you got The Non-Endorsement shoved into your piehole.
Yes, I am. And you quit, dad.
Let us proceed...
P.S., he jumped the same shark.
Nope. You ain't qualified either. Not after The Mistake.
Yep. I am.
You quit.
Nope. You aren't.
Let this be the official parameters for this new battle. If you utter the words "you quit" once more in this thread, then you have officially surrendered the battle to me. If I utter the words "You're a Mormon" then I surrender to you. Post again in this thread to confirm that you accept these parameters.
You quitPERIOD
Thanks!
That won't save ya.
Let us proceed...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
