Reply With Quote
In the end, it is not about who has the better statistics.
It is about who can go the distance.
Why dump on Hollinger, he's just giving an honest opinion.
My personal opinion is that the Spurs have little chance of winning the le this year.
Here are my past opinions:
1999 -- Very skeptical, the Spurs have a long history of underachieving and coming up "soft" in the playoffs. They probably will again.
Result -- Championship.
2000 -- Duncan will be back any game now. The Spurs set an NBA record for winning percentage in the Playoffs last year, they should repeat.
Result -- First Round Exit (to the Suns, no less).
2001 -- Now, that we are finally healthy and have the best record in the NBA, we show the Lakers who the real champion is.
Result -- Swept by the Lakers in the WCF.
2002 -- The Spurs just aren't good enough to win the le.
Result -- Yep.
2003 -- The Spurs may not be good enough to win the le against the three-time defending champ Lakers.
Result -- Championship. The Spurs eliminate the Lakers on their own court in Game 6 -- "The Crying Game."
2004 -- The Spurs will repeat. The Spurs are on the way up, the Lakers are on the way down, in disarray. The Payton/Malone experiment fizzled.
Result -- Lakers in 6.
2005 -- The Spurs are in way too deep against the defending champion Pistons (who easily beat the Lakers in '04).
Result -- Championship. Spurs beat the Pistons in 7.
2006 -- Finally, the Spurs will repeat. Nobody stands in their way in the West. The perennially choking Mavs? Without even the home court advantage?
Result -- Mavs in 7.
2007 -- The Spurs just can't match up against the quick, small-ball Mavs. Nobody can. Especially without the home court advantage. The Mavs won 67 games! More than the Spurs have ever won.
Result -- Mavs eliminated in Round One. Spurs sweep the Cavs in the Finals.
2008 -- Okay, this time I mean it. Finally, a repeat championship! These Lakers are a house of cards with no playoff success under their belts. Kobe will point fingers. Odom will disappear like always.
Result -- Lakers take the Spurs in 5.
Like I said, my personal opinion is that the Spurs have little chance of winning the le this year.
In the end, it is not about who has the better statistics.
It is about who can go the distance.
I don't dislike Hollinger so much that I think he's a fool. He openly admits that he only looks at the numbers to try and judge a team, and obviously, that is a meaningless pursuit.
Why dump on Hollinger, he's just giving an honest opinion.
My personal opinion is that the Spurs have little chance of winning the le this year.
Here are my past opinions:
1999 -- Very skeptical, the Spurs have a long history of underachieving and coming up "soft" in the playoffs. They probably will again.
Result -- Championship.
2000 -- Duncan will be back any game now. The Spurs set an NBA record for winning percentage in the Playoffs last year, they should repeat.
Result -- First Round Exit (to the Suns, no less).
2001 -- Now, that we are finally healthy and have the best record in the NBA, we show the Lakers who the real champion is.
Result -- Swept by the Lakers in the WCF.
2002 -- The Spurs just aren't good enough to win the le.
Result -- Yep.
2003 -- The Spurs may not be good enough to win the le against the three-time defending champ Lakers.
Result -- Championship. The Spurs eliminate the Lakers on their own court in Game 6 -- "The Crying Game."
2004 -- The Spurs will repeat. The Spurs are on the way up, the Lakers are on the way down, in disarray. The Payton/Malone experiment fizzled.
Result -- Lakers in 6.
2005 -- The Spurs are in way too deep against the defending champion Pistons (who easily beat the Lakers in '04).
Result -- Championship. Spurs beat the Pistons in 7.
2006 -- Finally, the Spurs will repeat. Nobody stands in their way in the West. The perennially choking Mavs? Without even the home court advantage?
Result -- Mavs in 7.
2007 -- The Spurs just can't match up against the quick, small-ball Mavs. Nobody can. Especially without the home court advantage. The Mavs won 67 games! More than the Spurs have ever won.
Result -- Mavs eliminated in Round One. Spurs sweep the Cavs in the Finals.
2008 -- Okay, this time I mean it. Finally, a repeat championship! These Lakers are a house of cards with no playoff success under their belts. Kobe will point fingers. Odom will disappear like always.
Result -- Lakers take the Spurs in 5.
Like I said, my personal opinion is that the Spurs have little chance of winning the le this year.
you Hollinger. The Spurs weren't supposed to make the playoffs according to your pale ass. you.
Agree with Hollinger, the spurms are the weakest of the bunch and a likely first round exit is bound to happen to any of the teams he mentions...
Live with it you mother ers!
at least the Spurs will make the playoffs. Enjoy the 9th seed.
This will be a very interesting April, May, and hope, hope, June.
Hollinger must DIE!!! Hope he's at the mercy of these fine citizens in .
Again, I am a math PhD and his math are WRONG !!!!
He is taking advantage of the fact that most ppl don't understand numbers, but if you take a closer look at his computations, he is fuking bias.
In my country there is a saying, you can always cheat using numbers and he is the prime example of that.
I agree with you jason1301. I don't have a math PhD... but you don't need it to see the flaws in Hollinger's logic.
About that +/- thing... this is probably one of his worst.
Last edited by mathbzh; 03-19-2009 at 04:05 AM.
The issue about this "analysis" is that it looked strictly at ONE aspect and tried to come up with some sort of conclusion. He comes up with the assumption that bench vs. starter +/- is the be-all-and-end-all indicator of how a team would perform in the playoffs compared to the regular season self, and that is just plain stupid.
While it is true that, in general, starters play more minutes because teams tend to play their best players more without worrying about rest, and have to play stronger compe ion, this ignores teams that has strong bench players, and would play those more minutes in the playoffs as a consequence. He acknowledged this with the Ginobili reference, but this also undermines the validity of the whole argument.
Other than that, the argument ignores style of play, coaching, players catching a hot streak (the Spurs was the benefit of that in 99 when Jaren Jackson couldn’t miss), and various other factors.
This piece looks to me like he is trying hard to validate why the Cavs will win the championship, and is actively looking for supporting evidence piece by piece, then reverse the whole argument by turning what favours the Cavs into indicators of success.
P.S. The 07 Pistons, 05-07 Suns, 04 Lakers are but a few teams that had strong starters and weak bench but didn’t win it all, and the 89 and 90 Pistons, and 03 Spurs were the ones that actually won the championship with the bench as great contributors.
Hollinger is probably the most objective writer around when it comes to assessing the relative strength of NBA teams. Is he always right? Of course not, but I would argue that he's more accurate than most other prognosticators.
He's right - we need Manu against Hornets, Utah or Lakers.
To all the people saying Hollinger just applies numbers and we should go easy on the guy, he gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars (I'm assuming) to do anyone with a grasp on how a calculator works could do. If you put yourself in the public eye you introduce yourself to increased scrutiny, and when you're consistently wrong you deserve to have people call for your job.
And all the " ESPN" people are the ones who go home and watch sportscenter. If you really have a problem with it, actually don't watch it or visit the site and you'll have nothing to about. Otherwise shut up because you're enabling their asinine "reporting".
I love all these insecure Spurs fans who gets their panties in a bunch when Hollinger writes something "negative" about their team, when this is the same guy whose formula had them ranked No. 1 throughout the 2006-07 season despite the fact they trailed Dallas by eight or nine games in the standings.
Individual statistical production makes a team great. => Kevin Durant, Al Harrington, Ricky Davis = championship.
-Hollinger
How the are you doing, ol' sporkie boy? I see you haven't found a life yet! I didn't realize Elementary school kids had a Spring Break? Oh well...
BTW, how are your Phoney Sunettes doing this season?
ROTFFLMFAO!!!
LOL, another faker fan. I think all of us Spurs fans have seen each of you idiots on the Tonight Show's Jaywalking. What a bunch of idiots Coliforieee produces.
BTW, talk about 'insecure' there are no more insecure fans than all the little faker s on the various Yahoo message boards. You'd think LA was having it's worst earthquake, mudslide, fire and gangland wars going on each time the fakers lose a game!
Just for the record how have your fakers done the last two (2) times they went to the NBA Finals...you know, last season against the Celtics and against the Pistons in 2004?
ROTFFLMFAO@the Fakers!
He predicted SA would be 47-35. So, a week from now when SA has 48 wins, everything Hollinger says from then until the end of the year is moot, as if it isn't already.
Hundreds of thousands? What is it you think he does?
9 posts huh? Thanks for showing up so early
Hollinger is a tool.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
