RealGM

Seriously, all this guy does is look at stats. He pays no attention to intangibles like leadership, experience, maturity, toughness, etc.

He's bagging on the Mavs and especially the Suns for these trades strictly based on his overrated efficiency rating.

He thinks the Kidd trade is a bad idea. If Harris is so good why isn't he the USA's starting PG?

hollinjerk earned his name for a reason

I can't stand people who immerse themselves in bull manufactured statistics, then claim those results as the be-all, end-all in diagnosing and analyzing players.

He is a statistician. That is what he does. Why don't you suggest an intangible stat. Like if your a starter and you have more than 10 yrs experience. And you have 'X' amount of playoff exp. Then you get more bonuses for your team.

But other than that. SDU's assessment is pretty accurate.

nanoclarkology wrote:He is a statistician. That is what he does. Why don't you suggest an intangible stat. Like if your a starter and you have more than 10 yrs experience. And you have 'X' amount of playoff exp. Then you get more bonuses for your team.

But other than that. SDU's assessment is pretty accurate.

That's the thing though... there's just some things you can't measure. Robert Horry doesn't put up huge numbers but he's considered one of the greatest roleplayers of all time.

It's the same thing you argue with all the Kobe homers. Sure, Kobe puts up big numbers but he isn't even close to the leader Jordan was. The intangibles Jordan brought to every single game surpassed the numbers he put up, IMO.

*sigh*

Why can't people appreciate Hollinger for what he is instead of always being offended when he doesn't agree with conventional responses?

He's a statistician; he's offering a different perspective and his work is centered around one form of analysis... let it be. Just because he doesn't agree with you doesn't mean a) he's always wrong or b) that his work has no value.

His application is a bit narrow sometimes but he still does important work that ultimately does contribute to the basketball community.

Saying ridiculous things like "hollinjerk" and what-not just reflects poorly on the poster more than anything else.

C'mon people, bring it above grade-school level.

tsherkin wrote:*sigh*

Why can't people appreciate Hollinger for what he is instead of always being offended when he doesn't agree with conventional responses?

He's a statistician; he's offering a different perspective and his work is centered around one form of analysis... let it be. Just because he doesn't agree with you doesn't mean a) he's always wrong or b) that his work has no value.

His application is a bit narrow sometimes but he still does important work that ultimately does contribute to the basketball community.

Saying ridiculous things like "hollinjerk" and what-not just reflects poorly on the poster more than anything else.

C'mon people, bring it above grade-school level.

Very true... I just find his way of looking at things ridiculously narrow and very limited.

Biff wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Very true... I just find his way of looking at things ridiculously narrow and very limited.

It's through a lens, certainly, but do you complain as virulently about Bill Simmons and his Celtics goggles? Or, say, Marc Stein?

Pick any basketball analyst and I'll find a major flaw in his approach, it's impossible not to evidence bias and limitations of scope or content. Every analyst has a style, preferences, they're all human. It's the nature of critical analysis. You have to do it through a lens to keep your work condensed and that produces theoretical limitations, exclusion of data, all kinds of problems.

What you do then, instead of moaning, complaining and insulting the analyst, is take his work in conjunction with the work of others and your own observations and look for trends, convergences and what-not and then you formulate your own opinion.

But recognize the value of data and of perspective; Hollinger produces informed perspective that is very well aware of its limitations (in fact, he routinely comments on the limitations of his methods in his articles) but that's not the point; he's working from one side because few other people are and the subjective analysts who honor intangibles ignore statistical facts as often as the reverse is true. Perhaps moreso.

Consider that.

The problem with Hollinger is that he states his analysis as an absolute truth, when it's still very one dimensional and potentially wrong.

He rates the Shaq deal as one of the worst when the Suns need a post defender, and Marion disappears during the playoffs anyway.

I personally do not care. I think all of them are stupid, bias reporters. Most are, and that is how it is. I think they look at things from a different perspective, and may shine new light on something else than the obvious. Statistics are neat, but they do not tell the whole story.

Suns_fan_2007 wrote:The problem with Hollinger is that he states his analysis as an absolute truth, when it's still very one dimensional and potentially wrong.

You expect him to offer his analysis in another way?

tsherkin wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



You expect him to offer his analysis in another way?

No one's absolutely right, and stats can lie like nothing else. He should be smart enough to state that the stats reflect one thing, but that real world factors are also important.

Stats alone are worthless.

Suns_fan_2007 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

No one's absolutely right, and stats can lie like nothing else. He should be smart enough to state that the stats reflect one thing, but that real world factors are also important.

Stats alone are worthless.

But he does; he routinely discusses the weaknesses inherent in his analysis, which no one here seems to want to recognize because it's trendier to call him arrogant.

But you can't expect him to present his stats as anything other than effective material.

Hollinger did admit that his PER is not the best stat to measure Kobe

The only issue I have with Hollinger is how absolute he sometimes makes his analysis seem in his articles. I remember a year or two back when he was adamant about what a great move it was for Indiana to sign Maceo Baston and what a "gem" he was. It really made very little sense, but he was almost in disbelief that people didn't buy it in two of his columns/chats. Baston went on to average like 2 pts and 3 rebounds and be exactly what most people thought.

It's almost like he tries to out-think himself in some of the analysis he does by picking and choosing certain stats.

I think people should avoid characterizing Hollinger's responses and just look at his analysis for base value.

Remember what PER is, for example, most people don't realize that it's a summary of box score contribution and that while it's true that Hollinger uses it as a semi-ranking system, he's very clear on its purpose and meaning.

Or things like his playoff predictor, how he routinely acknowledges that it has certain very particular uses, etc.

He's humble enough to recognize the flaws in his work but it's his work, the stuff around which his entire professional career is built, so people should just relax a bit.

In the real world... except journalism...

people need FACTS... and not opinion when suggesting or proposing ideas or information.

Hollinger might not analyze the "chemistry" or "experience" factors... but he does analyze what can be shown and proven with numbers... and again in the real world, your boss will never take you seriously (artists excepted.. and journalists) if you do not have numbers to back you up...