I disagree with a lot of this but it was still pretty interesting.
Never cease to amaze me. That is not a compliment. His system of statistical analysis seems to just be ridiculous. I think his analysis on statistics rather than analysis of actual players/teams usually leads to just out there opinions and articles on his behalf. I remember one year his play-off rankings had Utah ahead of Phoenix and their best case scenario total of wins was more than Utah could possibly have at that time (Like 56-26 when they had already lost like 28, even shown along with his analysis). I think his system is usually pretty off base and just changes so radically that I just see him as a source of amusement for children or something. He is the Barney of basketball. Albeit his system of mathematics and statistics is quite complex, but so is making a damn show about a scary frickin purple dinosaur who kids ended up loving. I also remember that two years ago he predicted Utah to win the NBA finals. Than he like came back and said he predicted like LA or Boston. Ludicrous I say! Well, it sure gives what I said about OKC a jolt, but I have a feeling it will not be true, like most of his predictions. Does he have an archive of his competence? Oh, didn't think so. Also, I once wrote him a long e-mail after a ridiculous article he made about people who should or should not have been in the rookie/sophomore game last year (He trashed the selection of Aaron Brooks over Ramon Sessions, I mean, really, as a Duck fan and a basketball fan I was just offended), but it messed up due to ESPN being ridiculous. Nonetheless, that is my rant on John Hollinger and his crazy statistics that seem to go nowhere.
Guys, honestly, I love that you are able to give people negative or positive points if you think their post is strong or weak or irrelevant or ridiculous. But, I am guessing here that I either a) Got one for my post being too long and the person couldn't read good (grammatical error due to the persons actual way of speaking) b) Have a serious love for John Hollinger and his statistical revelry or c) are either John Hollinger himself or maybe even his mother, in which case I have to ask, is his father Batboy from Weekly World News? But I made that statement as maybe a position of debate, I maybe wanted to know how others felt about John Hollinger, maybe even wanting one to defend why they do enjoy his statistical analysis. Heck, maybe to have people write about something other than one sentence blurbs that definitely have little or no solid point to them. Not at all calling anyone out, just would like to get people that actually have things to say to make this a discussion board, that way maybe we would not have to dwell on topics that come from the deepest darkest levels of boredom.
I disagree with those stat nerds from ESPN also, they are too much into the stats and this PER crap and they seem off beat about the actual action in the NBA.
Only Jesus could predict who would win the Finals 5 months from now.
and he cuts a good shrubbery as well. Mikenike, I have a correction to your statement. Anyone can predict it, but only a few can predict it correctly. I predict the Lakers, want the Cavs, and have no idea if either will win come June. Hollinger I am guessing wants some team in Bangladesh that True Shooting % is off the charts and has a 3rd string SG who has a PER that is off the charts.
Haha, Even after what happened with KD this past summer, about that rediculous column written on his PER, they still didn't leard how dumb these stats are. KD is killing this year, but his team is PLAYOFF bound too, that PER thingy was spot on wasn't it?
I can't stand hollinger. He has his head so far into his stats that he probably thinks he could just churn out the playoff results right now with some formula and there is no need to play the games.
Also, I feel that his columns border on arrogance, and that they make him out to be this wunderkind, but what exactly has he really done or predicted? He does look at the game differently I suppose, and I know numbers guys are definitely part of teams scouting squads (Jeff Ma of MIT blackjack fame I believe is a scout for the Blazers, and also predicted Kevin Love to be the best player in the 2008 draft, and while I think Kevin is a great player, thoroughly disagreed with the prediction). Still, I feel his system leaves out a lot of intangibles, his True Shooting % is garbage as it somehow leaves out 3 pointers, which to me is a tad ridiculous and it adds in statistics on per 48 minute basis so often that it does wonders for players who might not be in good enough condition to play extended minutes at a high level. Carl Landry is a great player off the bench, but John Hollinger was Meg Ryan in When Harry Met Sally over the guy his rookie year due to his high PER. Calm down Batboy, and maybe use numbers and actual basketball analysis in your columns? Just a thought.