Hollinger's Overrated / Underrated list

[Brickowski]

If Hinrich were just a shooting guard, he would be much less valuable.  It's true that shooting guards are a dime a dozen, although it is sometimes hard to find one who can really shoot.

[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?

[dlpin]

It's not that Hinrich is bad. It's that Hinrich at that price is bad. I would love to hear an explanation of how his worth all that money long term.

[Brickowski]

Hinrich only has two years left after this one, and the money goes down every year, not up.

[dlpin]

Hinrich only has two years left after this one, and the money goes down every year, not up.

It's still 17 million for 2 additional seasons. That is a lot more than a back up pg, occasional starting sg deserves.

[KCattheStripe]

Hinrich only has two years left after this one, and the money goes down every year, not up.

As does his talent.

[Donoghus]

I'm certainly not willing to pay roughly $9 million a year for a benchplayer.  

And I don't think that Hinrich is a guy you want to trot out there as your starting SG every game.

If the money was a lot more reasonable, I'd love to have him on the bench but I just don't like him at the SG position paired up with Rondo in the starting lineup.

[sk7326]

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'm 32.  Data rocks.  What is interesting is seeing where the performance actuals takes somebody - I am not sure sticking one's head in the sand in the face of all this actual information is profitable.  Reading the 700 page opus Simmons wrote - it's actually kind of interesting how close the two are despite Simmons' protests otherwise.  Oscar's triple double season for instance is amazing - but something Magic could have done year after year if he played in the 60s given the environment.

Missed shots are bad - and long 2 pointers are bad.  This is fairly common knowledge ... I am not sure either of these are wildly revelatory.  So players who miss lots of shots bear some scrutiny, and those who don't might deserve consideration.  Similarly, people who get to the line a lot deserve credit ... and why Leon Powe despite some of the same physical limitations Big Baby has was twice the player.  

In basketball, statistical analysis has its limitations.  But here is the thing - if a player is not providing tangible value, then there is some sort of burden of proof, some sort of requirement of unquantifiable value that is required to justify a guy's salary.  Is being able to play 2 positions and defend at an above average level enough virtue to justify $7M a year?    

Ray Allen is a poor defender - he turned the trick of being the starting SG on the worst defensive team of the last 10 years (the 2006 Sonics) and the best defensive team of the last years (us in 2008) - but someone who tries hard and keeps mistakes down can work in a solid team concept.  The team concept part of the defense has slipped - I suspect Ray's slippage is more a function of that than anything.  

[ssspence]

Hinrich is overpaid by current NBA standards, like a variety of other dudes lucky enough to get 5, 6 year deals a few years ago when they were still en vogue. The Bulls gave a very similar deal (with cascading money over the final few) to Andres Nocioni, another untradeable player.

Classic Bulls scenario: They should have traded him to Portland a year or two ago when they could have gotten something for him. Now they're stuck begging for an expiring contract. Will the Bulls ever stop being the deer in the headlights?

[BballTim]

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.

  He doesn't take an abnormally high amount of his shots late in the clock, he just misses them all. Paul and Ray and Rajon all take more "late" shots than Kirk and they all make more of them than he does.

[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'm 32.  Data rocks.  What is interesting is seeing where the performance actuals takes somebody - I am not sure sticking one's head in the sand in the face of all this actual information is profitable.  Reading the 700 page opus Simmons wrote - it's actually kind of interesting how close the two are despite Simmons' protests otherwise.  Oscar's triple double season for instance is amazing - but something Magic could have done year after year if he played in the 60s given the environment.

Missed shots are bad - and long 2 pointers are bad.  This is fairly common knowledge ... I am not sure either of these are wildly revelatory.  So players who miss lots of shots bear some scrutiny, and those who don't might deserve consideration.  Similarly, people who get to the line a lot deserve credit ... and why Leon Powe despite some of the same physical limitations Big Baby has was twice the player.  

In basketball, statistical analysis has its limitations.  But here is the thing - if a player is not providing tangible value, then there is some sort of burden of proof, some sort of requirement of unquantifiable value that is required to justify a guy's salary.  Is being able to play 2 positions and defend at an above average level enough virtue to justify $7M a year?    

Ray Allen is a poor defender - he turned the trick of being the starting SG on the worst defensive team of the last 10 years (the 2006 Sonics) and the best defensive team of the last years (us in 2008) - but someone who tries hard and keeps mistakes down can work in a solid team concept.  The team concept part of the defense has slipped - I suspect Ray's slippage is more a function of that than anything.  

I wouldn't waste 2 seconds on Simmons'.  He's only slightly more informed than Hollinger but, not someone I would read for their opinions with regard to bball.  If you want to laugh concerning a comparison of LJ to Teen Wolf,  Sure he's your guy.  I agree with with regard to Magic but, Hollinger probably thinks the Big O is better just like he thinks the 96 bulls are the best team of all time because of their Pt diff.  I'm just not overly impressed with that type of empty logic.  It's interesting but when someone tries to tell me someone is better than someone else because of PER, I instantly tune them out.

Just for clarification I'm not anti data guy.  It's just when people use it to determine whos overrated/underrated or who's good or who's worse.  In my opinion that's actually the lazy way of determining it.  It precludes the author (hollies) from actually understanding the game and how players play with each other.  But with the regard to data.  I live my live by it.  GO DATA.

And thankfully you added the Powe point because it sort of proves my point from the outset.  

[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.

  He doesn't take an abnormally high amount of his shots late in the clock, he just misses them all. Paul and Ray and Rajon all take more "late" shots than Kirk and they all make more of them than he does.

He'll get a boat load more open shots playing with Rondo than he ever did on Chicago. 

[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.

[Donoghus]

Hinrich is overpaid by current NBA standards, like a variety of other dudes lucky enough to get 5, 6 year deals a few years ago when they were still en vogue. The Bulls gave a very similar deal (with cascading money over the final few) to Andres Nocioni, another untradeable player.

Classic Bulls scenario: They should have traded him to Portland a year or two ago when they could have gotten something for him. Now they're stuck begging for an expiring contract. Will the Bulls ever stop being the deer in the headlights?

I can see the Bulls botching this and somehow getting shut out in the big free agent sweepstakes this offseason.  The one good thing is that its a big media market and some of these guys have Chicago connections.

[BballTim]

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?

  Wait. So 28 is the older generation? 28?!? Egads...