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.
Powe proves PER if anything ... btw, the Simmons opus is kind of remarkable and really really well researched. It's a LOT to read, but scrutinizes a lot of facts.
The Big O vs Magic is a tougher comparison because the league was too dumb to keep track of turnovers and blocked shots until 1974, which is amazing. We know in the 60s most teams ran way way more than they do now - and almost nobody could shoot. The rebound numbers were very high because the denominator was so high.
The 1996 Bulls as the greatest team of all time is hardly an iron lock case. That they were one of the three or four best is. So hey, they're a fair pick. I'd pick the 86 Celtics or 87 Lakers - but all of them (throw in the 71 Bucks, 73 Lakers, 01 Lakers if you want) have seats at the grownups table.
Stats people look at how people play with each other in terms of results - after all how do you think 82games.com justifies its existence? It just happens that (like lineup protection in baseball), the notion of things like clutch shooting or one guy explicitly, significantly making teammates better simply does not jive with the facts.
Some stats are misleading - most defensive stats do not jive with what matters defensively ... that is still very much a mystery. Assists are a mystery too, in their correlation with good offense varies ... teams that share the ball might do it because they are unselfish or because their players are bad one on one players. The 2006 Mavericks were an outstanding offensive team, but also lowest assists in the league - just a team that was gifted at creating and exploiting isolation.
Hollinger to his credit never uses PER as THE reason to pick or not pick somebody - but the PER results creates a quantitative case which gets augmented by the other stuff. LeBron's tangible contributions for instance are so much higher than anyone else's that he could have Todd Day's leadership skills and still be the best player in the league by a decisive margin.
Topic: Hollinger's Overrated / Underrated list (Read 17774 times)