John Hollinger

[dc]

It's obvious this guy doesn't watch the game. He's nothing but a stat monger and a nerd. Whenever he brings up a player analysis or player comparison, the first thing he mentions is his lame@ss "PER" stat.

For instance, he said Indiana got the better of the trade last year with the Warriors because Ike Diogu's PER (in sporadic minutes) was through the roof!

We know the results of the trade, but if Hollinger actually wanted to argue that Diogu was the real prize of the trade because of his low post skills, etc...that would have actually been a decent argument. Instead he points to his PER stat on a player who barely got any kind of regular playing time.

Then when someone on his chat a few months later questioned how that trade was working out, Hollinger made up a lame excuse saying that he thought it was a great trade for Indiana only because he assumed they were automatically going to make another trade for a guard to balance out his roster, which of course is something that he never wrote in any of his articles.

He bragged about how good Thad Young is by saying that he's the same age as Kevin Durant and has a higher PER! Oh boy!

Hey, Hollinger, do you actually watch the game? I like Thad Young and he's a nice young prospect, but he's not in the same stratosphere as Kevin Durant.

I can't believe ESPN actually charges money for his "Insider" stats.

Rant Over.

I edited your title and opening sentence because it conflicted with the TOS.

-miller

[5DOM]

raps are 4th in his ranking.

so hes good

[ss1986v2]

weak take. lots of people had lots of different opinions of that trade. but because hollinger thought diogu was key piece in the trade for indiana (as did others), that makes him a "d**che"?

and i dont have the chat infront of me, but did he say thad>durant? im willing to bet he simply was praising thad, not dissing durant. hollinger rarely uses PER number for straight head-to-head comparisons (ie, whose better), but simply to show similarities in production/efficiency. the same way he used kobe in an evaluation of manu. he even stated several time that "manu is not better than kobe", but that still didnt stop a "manu>kobe!?!? hollinger sucks!!!" thread from reaching 8+ pages on the lakers board. irrational outrage over non-issues/blind hate of hollinger.

essentially this is just another weak "PER sucks/hollinger sucks" take, with very little meat behind it.

[Bobbcats]

He does watch a lot of games as is evident by his preseason reports on each player.

He does lean a little heavy on stats, but be honest, how many times have you watched Durant and Young.

[Bucky O'Hare]

You can tell more from looking at stats than watching the games. Anyone who disagrees has a seriously overinflated ego. Your mind can't even come close to comprehending everything that stats can tell you. Not to mention, stats measure every second of a players gametime, something that's impossible for a fan to do.

[CupcakeNoFillin]

Man **** those NBA analysts that think they're hella cool just because they read stats and think they suddenly know everything.

[dc]

weak take. lots of people had lots of different opinions of that trade. but because hollinger thought diogu was key piece in the trade for indiana (as did others), that makes him a "d**che"?

I'm saying that it was lame of Hollinger to say Diogu was the key piece to the trade simply by pointing to Ike's PER and nothing else.

If he said something like about how Ike was a good young low post scorer that it's difficult those types of players in the league, that would have been a valid argument. He didn't anything like this and just went straight to how great his PER was.

As for Young, again he didn't mention anything about his game other than how great his PER was. Nothing about how he was being used on the floor or how he was complementing other 76ers players.

[ss1986v2]

-= original quote snipped =-



I'm saying that it was lame of Hollinger to say Diogu was the key piece to the trade simply by pointing to Ike's PER and nothing else.

If he said something like about how Ike was a good young low post scorer that it's difficult those types of players in the league, that would have been a valid argument. He didn't anything like this and just went straight to how great his PER was.

thats still of the take that "PER sucks!!!" so no one should use it. you could spin that and say that just because you think ike has a good low-post game, you need more reason, and until you have it, your reasoning is invalid. i have no problem listening to hollingers PER based comparison because he states time and time again that there are other factors out there and this is only one of many possible takes on the issue.

[dc]

-= original quote snipped =-


thats still of the take that "PER sucks!!!" so no one should use it. you could spin that and say that just because you think ike has a good low-post game, you need more reason, and until you have it, your reasoning is invalid. i have no problem listening to hollingers PER based comparison because he states time and time again that there are other factors out there and this is only one of many possible takes on the issue.

PER doesn't suck.

What sucks is using PER (or any one stat formula you want to come up with) as the basis of all your analysis. There are plenty of formulas one can come up with to evaluate a player, but I don't think any of that stuff is a substitute for actually watching the game.

I think saying Ike being the youngest guy in that trade and having a real low post game is a valid argument for saying he was the potential gem of the deal. There are plenty of factors involved with that trade, but most people could break it down pretty well without having to resort to PER or any other similar stat if they actually spent time watching the players.

Right now, Troy Murphy, Diogu and Mike Dunleavy all have higher PERs than Stephen Jackson (the Warriors 2nd best player), so take that for what it's worth. I'd have to use a lot more than that stat to analyze and compare those players. JMO.

[clipocketurs]

You can tell more from looking at stats than watching the games. Anyone who disagrees has a seriously overinflated ego. Your mind can't even come close to comprehending everything that stats can tell you. Not to mention, stats measure every second of a players gametime, something that's impossible for a fan to do.

I agree. The main reason some people don't like PER is because their favorite player's PER does not compare well to their favorite player's "rivals."

[CupcakeNoFillin]

-= original quote snipped =-

Right now, Troy Murphy, Diogu and Mike Dunleavy all have higher PERs than Stephen Jackson (the Warriors 2nd best player), so take that for what it's worth. I'd have to use a lot more than that stat to analyze and compare those players. JMO.

That's a very good example. That would mean that Dunleavy, Murphy and Diogu are all better than Stephen Jackson. But Warriors fans already saw how the Warriors do with Dunleavy and Murphy. lol.

[dc]

-= original quote snipped =-



I agree. The main reason some people don't like PER is because their favorite player's PER does not compare well to their favorite player's "rivals."

You're right absolutely 100% right. I have a bias towards Lebron over Jerome James and that just kills me.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinge ... 2frankings

[miller31time]

You're right absolutely 100% right. I have a bias towards Lebron over Jerome James and that just kills me.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinge ... 2frankings

I have a feeling a statistician such as John Hollinger knows the difference between large and small sample sizes.

[sine]

Hollinger writes some interesting articles, etc., but the problem is that when his formulas tell him something that makes no sense he assumes that the formula is right and he has just discovered something else that everyone is missing. It never seems to occur to him that maybe his formulas don't reflect who the best teams or players in the league are.

If his power rankings told him the Grizzlies are the best team in the league he wouldn't re-evaluate his system, he would write a column about how the Grizzlies are the best team in the league and no one realizes it but him.

If he was more willing to adjust when his math doesn't reflect say anything meaningful about reality people would hate on him less.

[dc]

-= original quote snipped =-



I have a feeling a statistician such as John Hollinger knows the difference between large and small sample sizes.

You would think so, but that certainly didn't stop him from boasting about Ike Diogu's impressive PER numbers even though Nellie barely played Ike, and when he did it was mainly in garbage time vs. the other team's backups.

[miller31time]

You would think so, but that certainly didn't stop him from boasting about Ike Diogu's impressive PER numbers even though Nellie barely played Ike, and when he did it was mainly in garbage time vs. the other team's backups.

And that may be so (though having an article for reference would be helpful in formulating an informed opinion), but it's an isolated incident at that. When you go back to the time that trade occured, most people were saying that Diogu was the biggest piece in the deal and that he had a bright future ahead of him. Hollinger took it another step, looked into his numbers and found out that (albeit in a small sample size) they reflected the assertion that Diogu was indeed doing well in limited minutes. I highly doubt he went around pronouncing him as the next NBA superstar, or ranking him up there with players with equal PER's and larger minutes.

[NetsForce]

Hollinger writes some interesting articles, etc., but the problem is that when his formulas tell him something that makes no sense he assumes that the formula is right and he has just discovered something else that everyone is missing. It never seems to occur to him that maybe his formulas don't reflect who the best teams or players in the league are.

If his power rankings told him the Grizzlies are the best team in the league he wouldn't re-evaluate his system, he would write a column about how the Grizzlies are the best team in the league and no one realizes it but him.

If he was more willing to adjust when his math doesn't reflect say anything meaningful about reality people would hate on him less.

This man speaks the truth. Hollinger is blinded by his stats that's my problem with him.

[dc]

-= original quote snipped =-

And that may be so (though having an article for reference would be helpful in formulating an informed opinion), but it's an isolated incident at that. When you go back to the time that trade occured, most people were saying that Diogu was the biggest piece in the deal and that he had a bright future ahead of him. Hollinger took it another step, looked into his numbers and found out that (albeit in a small sample size) they reflected the assertion that Diogu was indeed doing well in limited minutes. I highly doubt he went around pronouncing him as the next NBA superstar, or ranking him up there with players with equal PER's and larger minutes.

Hollinger didn't equate Ike to a superstar, but here is what he did say. (the link doesn't contain the entire article, but I'm too lazy to look for the full version)

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/experts_ ... 70118.html

"Ten years from now I have a feeling we'll be looking back on this deal as the Ike Diogu trade," Hollinger wrote on ESPN.com. "And if you're a Warriors fan, you probably won't be looking back fondly."

[ss1986v2]

-= original quote snipped =-



Hollinger didn't equate Ike to a superstar, but here is what he did say. (the link doesn't contain the entire article, but I'm too lazy to look for the full version)

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/experts_ ... 70118.html

"Ten years from now I have a feeling we'll be looking back on this deal as the Ike Diogu trade," Hollinger wrote on ESPN.com. "And if you're a Warriors fan, you probably won't be looking back fondly."

whats wrong with that? thats pretty much the same thing i (as well as many other analysts and even posters here) said at the time.

[NetsForce]

The Ike Diogu hype on RealGM was equivalent to the Diener Mania Era, no one was serious about it.