[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

I know that he has predicted everything in a per 40 minute format, but is it just me but don’t they seem way off? I don’t know, I was just looking at a few teams and players and it seems like his stats made little sense. Maybe it is because it is in the per 40 minute outline, but, for instance, he had Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge dropping off in scoring per 40 minutes than what they had both averaged last year in 37. It could happen, but I just think that his per 40 projections seem to be kind of bogus. I guess he feels like it displays a players efficiency, but it leaves so much out of the equation, like a players role on the team and of course anything not measured by statistics, which would apply more of course to defense. We know that his method favors bigger players, which in a way makes sense as mediocre bigs seem to have a longer shelf life than mediocre wings/guards, but I find it a strange compass. I just wonder why he leaves up the per 40 minute format rather than giving a prediction of how many minutes that player will play. For instance, with LeBron, it says he will average 29 points per 40 minutes. Well, if he plays 36 minutes per game, that is 26.1 per game, which I see as a fair prediction. I just kind of wonder where he gets his basis for these predictions. I just do not think these are incredibly accurate predictions, the more I analyze them the less I like them. He lists Amare as averaging one more point per 40 minutes than he averaged last year in Phoenix in 34. I personally see Amare averaged around 25-26 per game, and think that will be in far less than 40 minutes per.

It just would have been nice if he constructed a team and told their predicted statistics for the season rather than giving us the 40 minute efficiency bull he always does. PER is nice and all, but the bottom line is, most fans will not look at PER before all of the other statistics. To me, looking at Hollinger columns just always leave me shaking my head. It is not above my head, I know how to do the statistics to make actual projections of a players per game output, but I just do not know why someone who works with numbers would leave that out. To me, his numbers rarely if ever seem to tell the correct output of things to come, and his numerical ranking basis just seems to leave a ton of things out. He also seems to just think certain players are going to fall off of the face of the earth. To me, it almost seems like he took peoples scoring totals from last year, either added a point or two or took a bit away, and just said "per 40 minutes" next to it. Because other than bench players and people playing about 24 minutes per game, that is what he did. To me, mathematics play very little into that, and it is more just a way of trying to show off which players are the best in John Hollinger’s PER system. To me, that is incredibly dull and nowhere near as cool as if he were to actually make predictions of what players would do on a game by game basis. I mean, their PER’s would still be the same. I just think he is hoping that people won’t do the work to see how far off his predictions were, and no matter what he will cover his bases. Why does he constantly leave so much out of basketballs reality? How does he come to this basis? Why is he allowed to publish so many stupid columns that try to glorify his method of reasoning? The world may never know, and I sure as hell do not.

[llperez]

hollinger puts so much effort into his stats and formulas thats its almost like he will go by those and defend those formuals to the death becasue he knows it his stchik and thats what he has going for him over other journalists.

[stanford hoops]

Said it once and say it again. Per40min is in the fantasy sports catagory. Doesn’t really matter because it’s guess work.  No one knows how the defense would change or how tired a player would be or how many touchs. Etc. Per anything is nothing but guess work which is why I never take it seriously. I’m more into real stuff like how a player does in the minutes they get

[mj23mj23besteverParticipant]

all these are projections and as stan ford hoop stated im all about actuall production

[esperanzafleet69Participant]

amare averaged like 22 points last year in like 38 minutes… thats a fairly good guess by hollinger i think….

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

Actually, it was 23 in 34.6 mpg. So that is going to go down in an offense where he is going to get even more touches and be even more relied upon? If you take his averages from last year into consideration, he was at 26.5 points per 40 minutes. Now, you can say that 2 points are not a big difference, but I tend to disagree. Just do not think Amare should be projected at having less production given a bigger role, whether his PG is Steve Nash or not. His percentages and efficiency may very well go down, but not his scoring numbers. So, if he did average what you had said, than yes, fair assessment. But, he did not.

[stanford hoops]

which is why coachs dont look at there roster and say " man joe blow is averaging 8 points in 10min a game, i need to start playing him 30-40 min a game"

[Author]

Posts