Jon G, Article Suggestion

[pad300]

Hollinger has developed a system for "Forecasting the pro potential of top college players". He's put a couple of articles up about it, including last years draft class http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft200 ... e=ProRater
this year at the start of the college season (non-freshmen)
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft200 ... ter-071228
and now at the midpoint of the college season
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft200 ... ter-080131

It would be interesting if you would review the system, particularly comparing the results of his calculations to what Draft Express estimated at the time, and in hindsight.

[JonathanG]

Thanks for posting that. I usually really like Hollinger's stuff, but I'm just not sure that this one passes the sniff test initially. Too many BS redflags popping up--not to mention the fact that Hollinger himself makes sure to tell us a dozen times that he doesn't really think too much of his own system himself.

It's impossible to review what he's doing when he isn't telling us what the exact formula he's using is. Most people who want to be taken serious for studies like this (in any field) have to present that. That's one problem.

The other is that ESPN seems to be continuing their trend of not forcing their writers to actually watch the sports they evaluate before they write articles about them. We see the same thing with Chad Ford all the time. I can do without the steals column for big men, or offensive rebounding for guards (that's one way of evaluating athleticism I suppose...) to tell me that Eric Gordon and DeAndre Jordan are excellent athletes for example. Just watch them play for 15 minutes and then look me in the eye and tell me they aren't.

In fact, if athleticism was one of the key factors Hollinger was trying to look at when evaluating a player's pro potential (like NBA executives), he did a terrible job here. 12 out of the 20 players in his ranking are considered average or below in that department.

I'm a big fan of using numbers to compliment the scouting we do with our own eyes (and ears), but this one doesn't pass the sniff test unfortunately.

[JoeT]

I think it's an interesting tool to look at, and it maybe will make you take a second look at someone you might have been overlooking (we took a harder look at KC Rivers based off one of the articles you referenced), but as a real metric for judging prospects, it falls way short, in my opinion. I don't think you should make a draft pick based off this formula. Subjective analysis is still the most important thing in evaluating basketball prospects, and always will be, in my opinion. It helps to have statistical tools to supplement the subjective analysis, but I'm not a fan of all-encompassing metrics.

[UGA Hayes]

Thanks for posting that. I usually really like Hollinger's stuff, but I'm just not sure that this one passes the sniff test initially. Too many BS redflags popping up--not to mention the fact that Hollinger himself makes sure to tell us a dozen times that he doesn't really think too much of his own system himself.

It's impossible to review what he's doing when he isn't telling us what the exact formula he's using is. Most people who want to be taken serious for studies like this (in any field) have to present that. That's one problem.

The other is that ESPN seems to be continuing their trend of not forcing their writers to actually watch the sports they evaluate before they write articles about them. We see the same thing with Chad Ford all the time. I can do without the steals column for big men, or offensive rebounding for guards (that's one way of evaluating athleticism I suppose...) to tell me that Eric Gordon and DeAndre Jordan are excellent athletes for example. Just watch them play for 15 minutes and then look me in the eye and tell me they aren't.

In fact, if athleticism was one of the key factors Hollinger was trying to look at when evaluating a player's pro potential (like NBA executives), he did a terrible job here. 12 out of the 20 players in his ranking are considered average or below in that department.

I'm a big fan of using numbers to compliment the scouting we do with our own eyes (and ears), but this one doesn't pass the sniff test unfortunately.

Come on Jon, Hollinger clearly watches a lot of (NBA) games, you need to be careful about making these kind of accusations. I love your work and Agree that their are flaws in Hollinger's systems (all of them) but you have to be more careful about saying things like this. I think you could be going places if you keep up your work, but saying stuff like this could hurt you in the long run.

[magee]

^What? I'm not sure NBA execs are really worried about sopmething he wrote with honesty about another journalist on a message board read by 20 people throughout the year. That number jumps up come June to around 2,000, but even then, speaking his mind about a mathematical system that faults college players because they get heavy minutes against Euro-bound players shouldn't knock him down a peg in their minds.

[JonathanG]

-= original quote snipped =-



Come on Jon, Hollinger clearly watches a lot of (NBA) games, you need to be careful about making these kind of accusations. I love your work and Agree that their are flaws in Hollinger's systems (all of them) but you have to be more careful about saying things like this. I think you could be going places if you keep up your work, but saying stuff like this could hurt you in the long run.

obviously I was talking about college basketball here.