Hollinger

[j804]

What do you guys want them gushing all over us?? I actually love being the underdog and think our team does as well, were fine we dont need media hype.

[Brendan]

Here's the glitch in Hollinger's thinking:  he clearly doesn't think the "switch" exists, and after watching this Celtics team, it's clear that it does.

You can't evaluate this matchup based upon regular season numbers.  If you do, you're a fool at this point.

If the stats only approach (which he doesn't do really, but he leans heavily on them)  leads to a much better prediction than the scout heavy argument, can't we see the Celts team as an outlier?

[Roy Hobbs]

Here's the glitch in Hollinger's thinking:  he clearly doesn't think the "switch" exists, and after watching this Celtics team, it's clear that it does.

You can't evaluate this matchup based upon regular season numbers.  If you do, you're a fool at this point.

If the stats only approach (which he doesn't do really, but he leans heavily on them)  leads to a much better prediction than the scout heavy argument, can't we see the Celts team as an outlier?

Sure you can.  But to make definitive statements about a team, and to at times mock them, due to regular season stats seems foolish, especially after the first two rounds.

[FallGuy]

Hollinger tweet: "Every time at this year readers think I'm playing favorites. Just to clarify: we each write one team's "side." I had Orl, Sheridan had Bos"

That's why the article was Orlando-centric.

[FallGuy]

What do you guys want them gushing all over us?? I actually love being the underdog and think our team does as well, were fine we dont need media hype.

Celtics fans would make even Stan Van Gundy blush with their constant need to play the disrespected victim.

[the_Bird]

I *so* wish I could take credit for this comment....

Someone else on another blog commented that with his track record in these playoffs, "there's no plausible way to take Hollinger's predictions seriously."

[dark_lord]

What do you guys want them gushing all over us?? I actually love being the underdog and think our team does as well, were fine we dont need media hype.

i agree, however id like for them to give us some credit once in a while. 

[Birdbrain]

What do you guys want them gushing all over us?? I actually love being the underdog and think our team does as well, were fine we dont need media hype.

No I would very much prefer him picking against us.  I'm just thankful the PER and PT diff clones (some around here) are being served as the kids like to say.  Nice picks HollinPer.

[Roy Hobbs]

What do you guys want them gushing all over us?? I actually love being the underdog and think our team does as well, were fine we dont need media hype.

No I would very much prefer him picking against us.  I'm just thankful the PER and PT diff clones (some around here) are being served as the kids like to say.  Nice picks HollinPer.

I think point differential is a good predictor.  However, people need to use common sense when applying it.  If a team is clearly outperforming its regular season numbers, it doesn't make sense to stick to clearly predictive models.

[Birdbrain]

Here's the glitch in Hollinger's thinking:  he clearly doesn't think the "switch" exists, and after watching this Celtics team, it's clear that it does.

You can't evaluate this matchup based upon regular season numbers.  If you do, you're a fool at this point.

If the stats only approach (which he doesn't do really, but he leans heavily on them)  leads to a much better prediction than the scout heavy argument, can't we see the Celts team as an outlier?

Anyone that leans on stats as a predictor will always be a FAIL.

But by all means you math guys can back this fraud if you choose.

[Roy Hobbs]

Here's the glitch in Hollinger's thinking:  he clearly doesn't think the "switch" exists, and after watching this Celtics team, it's clear that it does.

You can't evaluate this matchup based upon regular season numbers.  If you do, you're a fool at this point.

If the stats only approach (which he doesn't do really, but he leans heavily on them)  leads to a much better prediction than the scout heavy argument, can't we see the Celts team as an outlier?

Anyone that leans on stats as a predictor will always be a FAIL.

Why so?  Lots of seasons the most statistically dominant team wins.  In our 2008 title run, we were a statistically dominant team, and the smart money should have been on us.  However, people made the "scout heavy" argument, and went with the Lakers.  How did that work out?

[LB3533]

Did the C's really flip the switch or did we just get healthier and started playing to our normal potential where as previously or earlier on, we were just under performing?

[Fan from VT]

"The Orlando Magic barely showed up on offense until midway through the third quarter, amassing a deficit so large that not even the Celtics could blow it, and that was the key to the Magic's 92-88 Game 1 defeat to Boston."

The above sentence is Hollinger's thesis: that the Magic did not get going until it was too late; even the Celtics, who will blow any lead, were able to hang on (barely). The more I read his premise, the more I feel a little annoyed by his inability to eat crow. It ignores our play-off record to date, which involves 12 games, and should stand for something at this point. He certainly wasn't afraid to bail on us in 2008. Our regular season record made us prohibitive favorites, but once we struggled against ATL, Hollinger quickly turned around and started picking all 3 of our opponents to beat us.  An elephant never forgets.

That's true. That phrasing was uncalled for.


Does it matter that that's how I felt as a fan though? My feeling throughout the whole game was "substract 10 points from our lead, and that's our REAL lead." So up by 15, to me, felt up by 5. Up by 20 was just up by 10-still anyone's game.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Did the C's really flip the switch or did we just get healthier and started playing to our normal potential where as previously or earlier on, we were just under performing?

The flip of the switch has been completely exaggerated, but there is a switch, there has always been a switch. Everyone knows the playoffs are a different monster. Some elevate their game, while some falter.

[BballTim]

Did the C's really flip the switch or did we just get healthier and started playing to our normal potential where as previously or earlier on, we were just under performing?

  A lot of it was getting healthier. A lot of it was becoming a cohesive unit because they went 2-3 months without KG and/or Paul being healthy. But it's also true that winning every game no matter the cost wasn't a priority for this team. They turned up the consistency and the effort (all teams do) but they've been showing, in spurts at least, that they were capable of this level of play during most of the season.