Hollinger's Overrated / Underrated list

[Fafnir]

The idea that its "lazy" to use advanced statistics, especially when you're using it to provide something other than "conventional wisdom" is weird to me. Its lazy to use more tools?

I also hate it when people throw out "uninformed" about analysts who spend a great deal of time on basketball. You might think they're wrong, but they're not uninformed.

OK he's wrong about most of opinions.

Well thought out and reasoned  .

You can't just use ancedotal evidence. Otherwise you'd have to take all the NBA columnists that proclaim Kobe as the best closer in the NBA seriously. (the same guys who argue with a straight face that he's the best player)

[Birdbrain]

Hinrich is valuable because he can play the point and he's a good defender.  His shooting percentage is deceptive because he takes alot of shots with the clock winding down.

Hollinger should watch more actual basketball.

Well then maybe he shouldn't take those shots since he rarely makes them, and the result seems to inevitably involve a fastbreak for the opposing team.

Hollinger watches a lot of basketball -- ESPN pays him to do it -- and while his theories can be far-fetched at times, I have no problem with him using a pretty wide variety of statistical analysis to in fact back up his perspectives.

It's certainly more interesting than being told that players or teams are good or bad because the writer knows a lot about basketball and that's what he or she thinks.

In my opinion there are dozens of NBA writers out there who should learn this lesson and get off their lazy backsides to provide some legitimate perspective.

I actually feel the complete opposite with regard to BB analysis.  I wonder if a generational thing.  I'm 28 are are you much younger?

I don't follow. You feel your generation's view of basketball analysis is thwarting the opinions and advanced statistics of others in favor of 'i know more than you do'? Maybe you shouldn't speak for the generation....

No I was just asking as way to use a statistic (age) to prove my point.  It's probably just anecdotal that I choose to use 'eyes' over 'stats' to determine who's better and not some age group.  

[Birdbrain]

Makes sense that every person he was overrated is in fact underrated.

Monta Ellis is scary overrated ... an unconscious gunner playing the point on the most selfish team in the league ... given his ghastly shooting percentage, he's a poor man Allen Iverson at his peak without the force of personality.  

AK-47 and Josh Smith have been underrated the way 2006 Shawn Marion was.  Fans clamor for team guys who do all the "little things", do not need the ball to be effective and defend the heck out of their position.  Sure enough we get those players and fans and conference coaches totally forget to honor them, let alone think of them as truly elite.

Hinrich is a decent defender who cannot shoot ... Ime Udoka does that for 1/13 of the price

You are so wrong about Ellis and I won't waste my time to explain it to you.  Stick with FG% and Per. 

Josh Smith and AK-47 (stupid name) aren't underrated either.  Everyone who knows the game that doesn't use per as the reasoning knows they are good.

Hinrich might be slightly overpaid but, a much better player than you believe if you think he's comparable to Udoka who know one wants. 

If you won't explain to people who really don't believe in Ellis why they should, why expect them to believe you?

And basically trying to claim Hollinger only has a job because of "PER Zombies" doesn't support your argument, especially when Hollinger didn't even use PER to downplay Ellis (even though he does have 17+ PER).

Personally, I wonder if Ellis is too small to play alongside Rondo, cause I feel we would get overwhelmed defensively.

I'd take a deal involving Hinrich if Salmons was involved, cause then Salmons could start at SG while Hinrich could be a backup PG. Otherwise, we're not better long term period.

It's waste because no one ever changes their mind.  I can't fathom a Celtic fan that's actually watched him play more than a few games not thinking he would be great addition.  The playing with Rondo point is valid to some degree but, the benefits IMO would outweigh the negatives.  It all might be moot because I saw he got hurt last night.

[Birdbrain]

The idea that its "lazy" to use advanced statistics, especially when you're using it to provide something other than "conventional wisdom" is weird to me. Its lazy to use more tools?

I also hate it when people throw out "uninformed" about analysts who spend a great deal of time on basketball. You might think they're wrong, but they're not uninformed.

OK he's wrong about most of opinions.

Well thought out and reasoned  .

You can't just use ancedotal evidence. Otherwise you'd have to take all the NBA columnists that proclaim Kobe as the best closer in the NBA seriously. (the same guys who argue with a straight face that he's the best player)

I know of that stat that you are referring to and guess what I would want Kobe taking my last shot if I was Laker fan (don't smite me ole lord).

[Fafnir]

It's waste because no one ever changes their mind.  I can't fathom a Celtic fan that's actually watched him play more than a few games not thinking he would be great addition.  The playing with Rondo point is valid to some degree but, the benefits IMO would outweigh the negatives.  It all might be moot because I saw he got hurt last night.

Then why come and post on a discussion board?

I've watched quite a few Warriors games and I don't think Ellis would help us win. He's too inefficient to play in an offense that moves the ball and no one averages all that many shot attempts. His defense is also poor for a two guard.