Reply With Quote
he's going by per stats.
duh.
That's the only logical explanation to make a player ranking list this whacked out.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holli...ger%2frankings
Timmy is the sixth best powerforward?! Pau Gasol is better than Steve Nash?! Yao Ming is the best player in the NBA?!
he's going by per stats.
duh.
WU TANG, WU TANG!
those rankings are PER based. take a look here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...ohn&id=2850240
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Efficiency_Rating
I know that they are. But it's based on his "projected PER", and any system that turns out those rankings is clearly significantly flawed.
Hollinger's a stat nut. What would make me question his smoking habits would be picking the Rockets to take the #1 seed in the west when they are going to be such a different team that there's pretty much no statistical data to base that decision.
It's not a ranking of "best" as in who helps most by leading/contibuting to wins.
It's mainly about being good and efficient on offense. One of the best, if not the best, for those categories actually.
Defensive players are usually underrated in PER rankings (as they are in real life).
Still, the Spurs have 3 players in the top 22.
haha see you guys at the Western Conference Finals. Buy ya a beer when we win.
Typically most of his stuff can at least be defended by numbers (although I question that alot), but his predictions are just ridiculous. I'd be shocked if the Rockets cracked the top three in the West, they have absolutely no shot at the number one spot. Yao is an awful fit in Adelman's system, and it's pretty much guaranteed that him and T-Mac are going to have health problems.
Didn't Hollinger pick the Spurs to win the le in 06-07?
John Hollinger has really dissapointed me.
I told you what I know ... Stats sucks, not only in school
Because we all know it's stats that win championships!
If you speak Mandarin, Cantonese, or live in a doublewide in East Texas.
Anyways, an excessive reliance on a player's performance as measured numerically, to the point of ignoring other pertinent data, say, whether or not his team has actually won a postseason series, makes one stupid. Houston's getting a lot of love from the stat geeks this summer, in no small part due to the fact that one of their own is running the show there.
I thought ratings did.
Those weren't even PER ratings, it was projected PER ratings.
I believe what he did was look at a player's stats, compare them with historical data from similar players in the past (say similar stats, age, same position, height, weight, etc....), look at the trends, create a multiplier, and then plug it into last year's PER to get a "projected PER".
The flaws are numerous, mostly because each player is very different from others in terms of peak years, and that system changes, team makeup and such are extremely important to a player's productivity (see Mike Bibby, Bonzi Wells and so forth).
It's looking at productivity by looking strictly at stats, and not the effect on final win-loss (because he can't), so if you define productivity in such a manner, then he is "correct".
I he really smoked weed wouldn't he pick Denver?
I just send him a question - Why? He had Duncan 4 overall last year and the dropoff from a PER of about 26 to under 24 is perplexing - granted Tony etc. will probably take away some of his offense but Duncan is like Groundhog Day - at the end he will be in the top 5 again. Furthermore, he hits a few more FTs and he is a top three.
Last edited by Rummpd; 10-10-2007 at 10:25 AM.
Hollinger's system is pretty good at extrapolating team data. He's not so good at evaluating individual players, because his PER is hamstrung by being limited to statistics which are kept by the NBA. I think that of all the major sports, basketball has the set of statistics which omit the most player contributions to winning.
PER projections last year spit out a number for Jackie Butler that would have made him a top 40 player this year, for whatever it's worth . . . .
And Pop didn't play him? What a ty coach.
I didn't know fans still got riled up over player rankings and pre-season predictions. They never meant squat. They'll never mean squat. And, especially by fans of a team that has won several recent championships.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
