How does Hollinger still have a job?

[LooseCannon]

So, here's one reason why Hollinger has a job:

PER may be a statistic with flaws (and even Hollinger admits it undervalues players who are good defenders), but in almost any thread of decent length about the value of a given player, someone will cite the PER of that player and others at his position.

Hollinger's role (I'm guessing, since I don't have the ESPN Insider) is to be the Rob Neyer of basketball.

[KGs Knee]

If you don't care about "stats" enough to understand them, its best not to mock them.

I understand stats quite well actually.  Which is why I dismiss them.

I highly doubt this when you say things like "stats say LeBron should have won already"

Ok, fair enough.  I'll admit that statement was a bit hyperbolic.  It was more just to make a point.

That being said, regardless of whether or not you believe I understand stats, it doesn't change the fact the only stat that really matters is wins and losses.

[fairweatherfan]

If you don't care about "stats" enough to understand them, its best not to mock them.

I understand stats quite well actually.  Which is why I dismiss them.

Subjective observation always will trump stats because there just aren't any stats that can account for the intangibles nessecary to be successful in sports.  Until someone can develope a way to measure a man's heart, determinantion, poise under pressure, etc., it will always be this way.

If you understood stats you'd know that statistical prediction consistently beats subjective prediction, in basketball and elsewhere.  People tend to remember their own predictions that were proven correct and forget the ones that were wrong.  Or they look back at what's already happened and mistakenly conclude that it had been obvious to them all along.  Add this to a tendency to notice and remember when stats appear to make wrong conclusions, and you wind up with a very skewed picture. 

[KGs Knee]

If you don't care about "stats" enough to understand them, its best not to mock them.

I understand stats quite well actually.  Which is why I dismiss them.

Subjective observation always will trump stats because there just aren't any stats that can account for the intangibles nessecary to be successful in sports.  Until someone can develope a way to measure a man's heart, determinantion, poise under pressure, etc., it will always be this way.

If you understood stats you'd know that statistical prediction consistently beats subjective prediction, in basketball and elsewhere.  People tend to remember their own predictions that were proven correct and forget the ones that were wrong.  Or they look back at what's already happened and mistakenly conclude that it had been obvious to them all along.  Add this to a tendency to notice and remember when stats appear to make wrong conclusions, and you wind up with a very skewed picture.  

In the business world, I'll admit stats do serve a very meaningful purpose.  In the sports world, not so much.

You say stats are a better way of predicting future results.  This still does not adress the issues I stated in my earlier post.  Things such as heart, determination, poise under pressure, rising to the occassion, etc. can not be measured by stats.  These so called intangibles usually have a much bigger impact on sports than what players/teams put up the nicest stats.

Obviously, you have your opinion, and I have mine.  It is doubtful either one of us will convince the other our "point of view" is right, so I'll just leave it as is, and consider it just "my two cents".

[Fafnir]

 Things such as heart, determination, poise under pressure, rising to the occassion, etc. can not be measured by stats.  These so called intangibles usually have a much bigger impact on sports than what players/teams put up the nicest stats.

Obviously, you have your opinion, and I have mine.  It is doubtful either one of us will convince the other our "point of view" is right, so I'll just leave it as is, and consider it just "my two cents".

Heart, determination, and poise are often just rationalizations for things that happen in my experience. Sure sometimes you get guys like Baron Davis and Corey Maggette who make it easy to talk about how they lack those things. But I think Dwight Howard has plenty of heart and works very hard. But he got beat two years in a row, it happens.

Sometimes when you shoot it goes in, sometimes it doesn't. Often how much "heart" you have is determined by whether the same shot you've taken 100 times goes in one time during the fourth quarter of a big game.

[BballTim]

If you don't care about "stats" enough to understand them, its best not to mock them.

I understand stats quite well actually.  Which is why I dismiss them.

Subjective observation always will trump stats because there just aren't any stats that can account for the intangibles nessecary to be successful in sports.  Until someone can develope a way to measure a man's heart, determinantion, poise under pressure, etc., it will always be this way.

If you understood stats you'd know that statistical prediction consistently beats subjective prediction, in basketball and elsewhere.

  They seem to be discussing the understanding of specific basketball stats, not the theory of stats in general. You don't need to know about statistical prediction accuracy to understand PER or the like. Statistical prediction consistently beating subjective prediction would obviously be dependent on the accuracy of the prediction model and consistency of the data. I might be able to come up with a prediction model for the nba based on the height or age of the players but it wouldn't necessarily be more accurate than informed subjective prediction.

[Fafnir]

If you don't care about "stats" enough to understand them, its best not to mock them.

I understand stats quite well actually.  Which is why I dismiss them.

Subjective observation always will trump stats because there just aren't any stats that can account for the intangibles nessecary to be successful in sports.  Until someone can develope a way to measure a man's heart, determinantion, poise under pressure, etc., it will always be this way.

If you understood stats you'd know that statistical prediction consistently beats subjective prediction, in basketball and elsewhere.

  They seem to be discussing the understanding of specific basketball stats, not the theory of stats in general. You don't need to know about statistical prediction accuracy to understand PER or the like. Statistical prediction consistently beating subjective prediction would obviously be dependent on the accuracy of the prediction model and consistency of the data. I might be able to come up with a prediction model for the nba based on the height or age of the players but it wouldn't necessarily be more accurate than informed subjective prediction.

True though in this case if we're talking about score differential, how this thread started, I think it has been proven to be more accurate than subjective predictions on the aggregate.

[BballTim]

 Things such as heart, determination, poise under pressure, rising to the occassion, etc. can not be measured by stats.  These so called intangibles usually have a much bigger impact on sports than what players/teams put up the nicest stats.

Obviously, you have your opinion, and I have mine.  It is doubtful either one of us will convince the other our "point of view" is right, so I'll just leave it as is, and consider it just "my two cents".

Heart, determination, and poise are often just rationalizations for things that happen in my experience. Sure sometimes you get guys like Baron Davis and Corey Maggette who make it easy to talk about how they lack those things. But I think Dwight Howard has plenty of heart and works very hard. But he got beat two years in a row, it happens.

Sometimes when you shoot it goes in, sometimes it doesn't. Often how much "heart" you have is determined by whether the same shot you've taken 100 times goes in one time during the fourth quarter of a big game.

  This seems to somewhat imply that players that perform better or worse than usual in big games or clutch situations do so out of randomness. I'm not sure I would agree with this.

[KGs Knee]

If you don't care about "stats" enough to understand them, its best not to mock them.

I understand stats quite well actually.  Which is why I dismiss them.

Subjective observation always will trump stats because there just aren't any stats that can account for the intangibles nessecary to be successful in sports.  Until someone can develope a way to measure a man's heart, determinantion, poise under pressure, etc., it will always be this way.

If you understood stats you'd know that statistical prediction consistently beats subjective prediction, in basketball and elsewhere.

  They seem to be discussing the understanding of specific basketball stats, not the theory of stats in general. You don't need to know about statistical prediction accuracy to understand PER or the like. Statistical prediction consistently beating subjective prediction would obviously be dependent on the accuracy of the prediction model and consistency of the data. I might be able to come up with a prediction model for the nba based on the height or age of the players but it wouldn't necessarily be more accurate than informed subjective prediction.

True though in this case if we're talking about score differential, how this thread started, I think it has been proven to be more accurate than subjective predictions on the aggregate.

Not really looking to argue the point anymore, just want to throw this out there.

Did not our very own beloved Celtics prove the scoring margin theory to be wrong last season?

[Fafnir]

If you don't care about "stats" enough to understand them, its best not to mock them.

I understand stats quite well actually.  Which is why I dismiss them.

Subjective observation always will trump stats because there just aren't any stats that can account for the intangibles nessecary to be successful in sports.  Until someone can develope a way to measure a man's heart, determinantion, poise under pressure, etc., it will always be this way.

If you understood stats you'd know that statistical prediction consistently beats subjective prediction, in basketball and elsewhere.

  They seem to be discussing the understanding of specific basketball stats, not the theory of stats in general. You don't need to know about statistical prediction accuracy to understand PER or the like. Statistical prediction consistently beating subjective prediction would obviously be dependent on the accuracy of the prediction model and consistency of the data. I might be able to come up with a prediction model for the nba based on the height or age of the players but it wouldn't necessarily be more accurate than informed subjective prediction.

True though in this case if we're talking about score differential, how this thread started, I think it has been proven to be more accurate than subjective predictions on the aggregate.

Not really looking to argue the point anymore, just want to throw this out there.

Did not our very own beloved Celtics prove the scoring margin theory to be wrong last season?

Statistics deal with probabilities not certainties, what the Celtics did was unexpected by the majority of NBA observers. (including me!)

That doesn't mean you throw away 30+ years of data.

[Fan from VT]

If you don't care about "stats" enough to understand them, its best not to mock them.

I understand stats quite well actually.  Which is why I dismiss them.

Subjective observation always will trump stats because there just aren't any stats that can account for the intangibles nessecary to be successful in sports.  Until someone can develope a way to measure a man's heart, determinantion, poise under pressure, etc., it will always be this way.

If you understood stats you'd know that statistical prediction consistently beats subjective prediction, in basketball and elsewhere.  People tend to remember their own predictions that were proven correct and forget the ones that were wrong.  Or they look back at what's already happened and mistakenly conclude that it had been obvious to them all along.  Add this to a tendency to notice and remember when stats appear to make wrong conclusions, and you wind up with a very skewed picture. 

In the business world, I'll admit stats do serve a very meaningful purpose.  In the sports world, not so much.

You say stats are a better way of predicting future results.  This still does not adress the issues I stated in my earlier post.  Things such as heart, determination, poise under pressure, rising to the occassion, etc. can not be measured by stats.  These so called intangibles usually have a much bigger impact on sports than what players/teams put up the nicest stats.

I think that you're switching cause and effect as well as ignoring the effect of narrative on perception.

For example, the stats do not come out, then you get to add "heart," "clutchness," and "Determination" on afterwards. All of those attributes are things that were used to achieve the stats already recorded; big picture they are accounted for. To expand, last year I would argue the C's had more grit and resolve but the lakers were better: mostly due to health.
So by your reasoning, it would be something like this:
Lakers > Celtics, but Lakers < (Celtics+Heart)

However, if heart actually is an independent trait that contributes to outcomes and differs significantly between teams, I think it is more accurate to say:

Lakers  >> Celtics; Lakers > (Celtics+Heart). Hence why Lakers barely won.


In other words, the "Heart" or "Intangibles" part can be an explanation of HOW two teams with different observed raw talent end up being close statistically, not a reason, post-results, why one team WILL be better later.

As for the second point, most subjective "analysis" by writers and fans, is really a retroactive projection of values that tells you more about the writer than the game. Essentially, the observer has a preconceived notion of both "positive" traits (usually with moral undertones) as well as what it takes to win.

Then, when a team does win, regardless of how it actually happened, the writer applies those traits and characteristics to the victorious team. It doesn't matter that such traits are inherently vague and applicable to essential components of every single team that exists. The logic is: you need X to win, Team A won; therefore they possess X in greater quantities than any other team.



Others have mentioned the significant recall bias and confirmation bias that accompanies distrust of stats, so I won't re-type all that here, but it's often there too.

I think there's also a frequent misunderstanding of what it means to be "statistically accurate" too. I think it seems that a common criticism of Hollinger is that not all of his predictions are true, therefore his methods are useless.

But 100% accuracy on things that involve a lot of chance outcomes is never going to be possible. His goal is only to be more accurate than standard analysis, which, not surprisingly, is usually accurate around 50% of the time.

It's the Gambler's goal. With many good statistical machines,  you can almost guarantee being right almost 60% of the time betting against the spread. Thing is, you have no idea what games you'll be right on week to week, so you have to bet an equal amount on all games and trust that you'll come out ahead at the end. It's not that sexy, but if you guarantee yourself 60% winning, you make a lot of money and you do statistically significantly better than the old guy with a cigar and a hunch handing out tips.

[BballTim]

If you don't care about "stats" enough to understand them, its best not to mock them.

I understand stats quite well actually.  Which is why I dismiss them.

Subjective observation always will trump stats because there just aren't any stats that can account for the intangibles nessecary to be successful in sports.  Until someone can develope a way to measure a man's heart, determinantion, poise under pressure, etc., it will always be this way.

If you understood stats you'd know that statistical prediction consistently beats subjective prediction, in basketball and elsewhere.

  They seem to be discussing the understanding of specific basketball stats, not the theory of stats in general. You don't need to know about statistical prediction accuracy to understand PER or the like. Statistical prediction consistently beating subjective prediction would obviously be dependent on the accuracy of the prediction model and consistency of the data. I might be able to come up with a prediction model for the nba based on the height or age of the players but it wouldn't necessarily be more accurate than informed subjective prediction.

True though in this case if we're talking about score differential, how this thread started, I think it has been proven to be more accurate than subjective predictions on the aggregate.

  In general yes, but at the very least it needs to be weighted for strength (and probably current performance) of opponents. I think there are enough variables that aren't accounted for that a person, if they spent the time and effort, could beat it for accuracy.

[Fafnir]

 Things such as heart, determination, poise under pressure, rising to the occassion, etc. can not be measured by stats.  These so called intangibles usually have a much bigger impact on sports than what players/teams put up the nicest stats.

Obviously, you have your opinion, and I have mine.  It is doubtful either one of us will convince the other our "point of view" is right, so I'll just leave it as is, and consider it just "my two cents".

Heart, determination, and poise are often just rationalizations for things that happen in my experience. Sure sometimes you get guys like Baron Davis and Corey Maggette who make it easy to talk about how they lack those things. But I think Dwight Howard has plenty of heart and works very hard. But he got beat two years in a row, it happens.

Sometimes when you shoot it goes in, sometimes it doesn't. Often how much "heart" you have is determined by whether the same shot you've taken 100 times goes in one time during the fourth quarter of a big game.

  This seems to somewhat imply that players that perform better or worse than usual in big games or clutch situations do so out of randomness. I'm not sure I would agree with this.

Kobe shot well south of league average in clutch situations, does he lack heart? There is no measure of "intangibles" nor does anyone really agree on who has what intangibles.

I mean tons of NBA fans outside of Boston/Minny think of KG as a cowardly bully who chokes when the game is on the line. I don't think that's true at all. (nor do what measures we have of "clutch")

[kozlodoev]

According to the "stats", Lebron should already have multiple titles.

Can you please quote the "stats" on which you base this statement?

[Fafnir]

If you don't care about "stats" enough to understand them, its best not to mock them.

I understand stats quite well actually.  Which is why I dismiss them.

Subjective observation always will trump stats because there just aren't any stats that can account for the intangibles nessecary to be successful in sports.  Until someone can develope a way to measure a man's heart, determinantion, poise under pressure, etc., it will always be this way.

If you understood stats you'd know that statistical prediction consistently beats subjective prediction, in basketball and elsewhere.

  They seem to be discussing the understanding of specific basketball stats, not the theory of stats in general. You don't need to know about statistical prediction accuracy to understand PER or the like. Statistical prediction consistently beating subjective prediction would obviously be dependent on the accuracy of the prediction model and consistency of the data. I might be able to come up with a prediction model for the nba based on the height or age of the players but it wouldn't necessarily be more accurate than informed subjective prediction.

True though in this case if we're talking about score differential, how this thread started, I think it has been proven to be more accurate than subjective predictions on the aggregate.

  In general yes, but at the very least it needs to be weighted for strength (and probably current performance) of opponents. I think there are enough variables that aren't accounted for that a person, if they spent the time and effort, could beat it for accuracy.

I think that people are too subject to their own biases. I suppose there is some one out there who does that. But I have my doubts.