Can someone post his article. The dude is near dead on about everything he says about the regular season and I'd like to see what he is saying about us.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/preview2 ... rs-outlook
John Hollinger - Warriors Forecast
Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes
10 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Starting Lineup
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am Poster Credit: 15 |
|
|
I hate John Hollinger. I don't read much into anything that guy says. I forget what it was but I've read things from him from the past and it just pissed me off. I'm trying to post the article but its not letting me log in for some reason. I'll try again later.
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Enjoy ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
QFT. Blackfoot, I can't believe you think that dude is dead-on. He's the antichrist to the sobering notion that stats don't tell the whole story. If Hollinger ran the world, LeBron would have 8 titles by now. The dude is a stat junky and has zero regard for traditional forms of player evaluation. I have about the opposite sentiment as you; I think he's a safe betting blow hard who couldn't call an upset with a flux capacitor... ![]() GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD ![]() ![]() |
|
Starting Lineup
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am Poster Credit: 15 |
His playoff predictions are off because playoffs are inherently a crapshoot. Still predicts at a higher accuracy than anyone at ESPN for the playoffs. Secondly, his regular season predictions are at 91 percent accuracy. If you want to put in terms of Vegas. He'd make 131.31 dollars for every 100 dollars. So, 1.00 dollar to 2.31 dollars. He's very accurate. He watches the game and gives pretty candid scouting reports.
Secondly, his predictions are adjusted because he knows his stats have inherent flaws to it. He even puts in his scouting report why this person would have a misleading PER in some. I can't remember what player he talked about but the person was an average scorer and a very high PER. He said that was because his passing rate was very low so he had very little turnovers, which bloated his PER. The notion that he doesn't have the whole story is a myth. Advanced stats are still better than traditional stats even if you don't like them. Traditional stats say Kobe is a better passer than Iggy. Well, Kobe has a 33.3 usage rating. Iggy has a 17.2 usage rating. In terms of rate, Iggy is a much better shot creator for his teammates, which is why his assist ratio is much better despite Kobe averaging more per game. In 06-07, our series with the Mavs. His numbers predicted we'd win, the only reason he didn't pick us was because he was like "well, 67 wins, man." Not really relevant to anything I said previously, but I thought it was a neat fun fact. As for traditional scouting: John Hollinger is pretty good at evaluating talents coming from college. And having better stats to evaluate talent does not take away from that. Advanced stats aren't without their flaws, but the flaws they have are also present in traditional stats and sometimes worse. All the complaints I see about Hollinger aren't true for the most part. I am not really sure why these myths exist about him. |
|
I am a huge believer in advanced stats (dunno why you'd suggest that I didn't like them?). When used moderately with other forms of evaluation, they can be tremendously useful.
But here's the thing: anybody who relies 100% on (a) traditional stats, (b) advanced stats, or (c) their "gut" is lacking in their ability to evaluate. Hollinger is a Type B. He believes that advanced statistics tell the whole story and in the same way a guy like Chad Ford is a moron for going 100% off his gut, Hollinger is a pompous blow hard who talks down to readers that aren't willing to buy into his "math must equal truth" rationale. Of course he'd make money in Vegas; stats are a complete and total safe bet. That's why the house goes off of them. But would you consider Charles Barkley a basketball genius because he always picks the statistical favorite? If stats ran the world, why would teams play the games? In my opinion, guys who fall back on the safe bets 100% of the time (like Steinmetz, like Barkley, like Hollinger) aren't doing their job; they're just presenting us with a medium that's already available to those who know where to look. If you believe Hollinger's efficiency stats are a direct representation of the game, you're telling me you believe Rajon Rondo is the 19th best point guard in the league and Jeremy Lin is the 8th best. You're telling me that Thaddeus Young (8) is a better SF than Luol Deng (25), Rudy Gay (10), or Gerald Wallace (12). You're saying you'd rather have JaVelle McGee's crazy ass (8) than Tyson Chandler (13), Roy Hibbert (10), or Marc Gasol (15). And that's cool; God knows, there are some who believe advanced stats are never wrong. But I'd heavily disagree. You gotta have a proper balance of many forms of evaluation. You gimmie a 3-on-3 squad of Rondo, Crash, and Hibbert all day versus Hollinger's crew of Lin, Thaddeus, and McGee and see who comes out on top. ![]() GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD ![]() ![]() |
|
Starting Lineup
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am Poster Credit: 15 |
See, you don't read Hollinger or pay attention if you think he only goes off of math. That's a complete misrepresentation. By his own admission his PER stat is flawed because it does not take into account defense that is not steals/blocks. That's what is wrong with it.
And, no, that's not Vegas works. I am guessing you are implying the safe bet is the favorite or the person who is supposed to win? I am going off of that premise so correct me if I am wrong. You will not win money in Vegas just betting the favorites. This payout that was projected for Hollinger was based on Boldness as well. Take his Lakers at four for example. He says they will compete for a champion and that they will be really ****ing good, even according to his numbers. He has them at four because of the initial chemistry problems, the age, and the lack of bench. His numbers say second best in the west by starting rotation or first if you don't have any of the older guys declining by anything. Hollinger doesn't go off his stats completely because they aren't as accurate as they could be yet, he knows that. It's not like baseball where the advanced stats for hitting are dead on. Basketball is away and far behind baseball in terms of evaluation and that's why he factors in other things. He does not think Chandler, Crash, and Hibbert are better than the three mentioned. Follow the dude on twitter, he writes what he watches and is pretty candid about it. |
|
You're correct: I absolutely don't read Hollinger. IMO, it's a waste of time and eye sight.
Hollinger's 2010-'11 Predicted Standings: http://m.espn.go.com/nba/story?storyId=5686303 Actual 2010-'11 Standings: http://www.nba.com/standings/2010/team_ ... d_Cnf.html Sure, the playoffs are infinitely easier to predict after a season has been laid out in front of you. But when Hollinger tries his hand at predicting success before the season, he fails to the tune of 83%, only predicting 5 out of 30 teams correctly. I sense we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this; I cannot and will not pretend that I think John Hollinger has any sort of credibility or foresight. ![]() GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD ![]() ![]() |
|
|
Lastly, if you're claiming he isn't 100% reliant upon his advanced statistics, than he has made an all-encompassing, born-again about face from when I was an ESPN subscriber between 2004 and 2007.
![]() GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD ![]() ![]() |
|
Starting Lineup
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 1:57 am Poster Credit: 15 |
First thing is first: John Hollinger @johnhollinger
90-95% model. Small subjective adjustments. MT @16to17 How do you make record predictions? Conjecture or based on a model? Proof that he has been the most accurate http://weaksideawareness.wordpress.com/ ... -for-wins/ http://weaksideawareness.wordpress.com/ ... n-2010-11/ https://weaksideawareness.wordpress.com ... edictions/ 2010-2011 was his worst year at predicting, but the other two should help you have a bigger sample size. He had two top seasons and one average. His track record speaks for himself. |
10 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests








