Hollinger's big three article

[TerreHaute]

Did anybody else read Hollinger's article on the most statistically productive Big 3 of all time?

What a sham. He puts Bird, McHale, and Parish way at the bottom and Jordan, Pippen, and Grant at the top. One thing his statistical measurements fail to show is that the rest of the Bulls roster was really bad for a championship team and the mid 80's Celtics had Hall of Famers and former all-stars coming off the freaking bench. Of course the production of the Big 3 would be less, they actually had other people on the team who were capable of playing the game of basketball.

[Fafnir]

Did anybody else read Hollinger's article on the most statistically productive Big 3 of all time?

What a sham. He puts Bird, McHale, and Parish way at the bottom and Jordan, Pippen, and Grant at the top. One thing his statistical measurements fail to show is that the rest of the Bulls roster was really bad for a championship team and the mid 80's Celtics had Hall of Famers and former all-stars coming off the freaking bench. Of course the production of the Big 3 would be less, they actually had other people on the team who were capable of playing the game of basketball.

Well the point of the article was to rate just the trios statistical production. I don't think its a sham that he doesn't bother to discuss the relative strength of the team's benches.

I'm not a huge fan of PER, which is the biggest determinate of the article. Its interesting, but only in an abstract sense. I wonder what would be the results if he removed the "must have won a title" qualifier. Who'd show up at the top then?

[Donoghus]

Can someone provide a list please?

[Fafnir]

Can someone provide a list please?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-101224

Top-rated championship trios, 1980-2010
Season   Team   Trio Rating   Player 1   Player 2   Player 3
1991-92   Bulls    26.4    Jordan    Pippen    Grant
1995-96    Bulls    25.0    Jordan    Pippen    Kukoc
2006-07    Spurs    25.0    Duncan    Ginobili    Parker
1999-00    Lakers    24.1    O'Neal    Bryant    Rice
1990-91    Bulls    24.1    Jordan    Pippen    Grant
1996-97    Bulls    23.5    Jordan    Pippen    Kukoc
1985-86    Celtics    23.4    Bird    McHale    Parish
1982-83    76ers    23.3    Malone    Erving    Cheeks
1979-80    Lakers    23.2    Kareem    Magic    Wilkes
1992-93    Bulls    23.1    Jordan    Pippen    Grant
2004-05    Spurs    22.8    Duncan    Ginobili    Parker
1983-84    Celtics    22.8    Bird    Parish    McHale
1981-82    Lakers    22.2    Magic   Kareem   Wilkes
2008-09   Lakers   22.0   Bryant   Gasol   Bynum
2007-08   Celtics   21.8   Garnett   Pierce   Allen

[Roy H.]

Top-rated championship trios, 1980-2010

1. 1991-92 Bulls 26.4 Jordan Pippen Grant
2. 1995-96 Bulls 25.0 Jordan Pippen Kukoc
3. 2006-07 Spurs 25.0 Duncan Ginobili Parker
4. 1999-00 Lakers 24.1 O'Neal Bryant Rice
5. 1990-91 Bulls 24.1 Jordan Pippen Grant
6. 1996-97 Bulls 23.5 Jordan Pippen Kukoc
7. 1985-86 Celtics 23.4 Bird McHale Parish
8. 1982-83 76ers 23.3 Malone Erving Cheeks
9. 1979-80 Lakers 23.2 Kareem Magic Wilkes
10. 1992-93 Bulls 23.1 Jordan Pippen Grant
11. 2004-05 Spurs 22.8 Duncan Ginobili Parker
12. 1983-84 Celtics 22.8 Bird Parish McHale
13. 1981-82 Lakers 22.2 Magic Kareem Wilkes
14. 2008-09 Lakers 22.0 Bryant Gasol Bynum
15. 2007-08 Celtics 21.8 Garnett Pierce Allen

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-101224

Basically, it's possible to manipulate statistics however you want to.  Hollinger has made a career out of it.  A large bulk of this particular formula is based upon PER -- a "stat" created by Hollinger -- and minutes played, which seems fairly arbitrary to me (since, arguably, a trio that plays fewer minutes because it's blowing teams out could actually be stronger than a trio playing a ton of minutes together).

I mean, Hollinger's formula has 1992 Horace Grant (14 points, 10 rebounds) as the best third fiddle of the past 30 years.  I'm sorry, but Grant wasn't even close to being in the same class as Parish.

[Roy H.]

Did anybody else read Hollinger's article on the most statistically productive Big 3 of all time?

What a sham. He puts Bird, McHale, and Parish way at the bottom and Jordan, Pippen, and Grant at the top. One thing his statistical measurements fail to show is that the rest of the Bulls roster was really bad for a championship team and the mid 80's Celtics had Hall of Famers and former all-stars coming off the freaking bench. Of course the production of the Big 3 would be less, they actually had other people on the team who were capable of playing the game of basketball.

Well the point of the article was to rate just the trios statistical production. I don't think its a sham that he doesn't bother to discuss the relative strength of the team's benches.

I'm not a huge fan of PER, which is the biggest determinate of the article. Its interesting, but only in an abstract sense. I wonder what would be the results if he removed the "must have won a title" qualifier. Who'd show up at the top then?

When "minutes played" is a huge part of your formula, as is defensive rating, isn't the strength of a trio's teammates an extremely important factor?

[Roy H.]

Also, LOL at any "statistic" that ranks KG near the bottom of leading men.  Even if the measure is statistical production, it seems silly to rank KG down "because he played only 2,328 minutes".  That 2008 team was blowing teams out and cruised to 66 wins.  KG should be ranked downward because of his minutes played?

Silly.

[Fafnir]

Did anybody else read Hollinger's article on the most statistically productive Big 3 of all time?

What a sham. He puts Bird, McHale, and Parish way at the bottom and Jordan, Pippen, and Grant at the top. One thing his statistical measurements fail to show is that the rest of the Bulls roster was really bad for a championship team and the mid 80's Celtics had Hall of Famers and former all-stars coming off the freaking bench. Of course the production of the Big 3 would be less, they actually had other people on the team who were capable of playing the game of basketball.

Well the point of the article was to rate just the trios statistical production. I don't think its a sham that he doesn't bother to discuss the relative strength of the team's benches.

I'm not a huge fan of PER, which is the biggest determinate of the article. Its interesting, but only in an abstract sense. I wonder what would be the results if he removed the "must have won a title" qualifier. Who'd show up at the top then?

When "minutes played" is a huge part of your formula, as is defensive rating, isn't the strength of a trio's teammates an extremely important factor?

Well they played roughly the same amount of mintues per game from what I looked at quickly. Plus the 85-86 Celtics are getting credit for being a better defensive team.

Still the main component is PER, which isn't my favorite measure. No surprise Jordan dominates that list.

[Fafnir]

Also, LOL at any "statistic" that ranks KG near the bottom of leading men.  Even if the measure is statistical production, it seems silly to rank KG down "because he played only 2,328 minutes".  That 2008 team was blowing teams out and cruised to 66 wins.  KG should be ranked downward because of his minutes played?

Silly.

Yeah that's a case of the marginal credit that the trios get for team defense not doing KG justice.

[guava_wrench]

Did anybody else read Hollinger's article on the most statistically productive Big 3 of all time?

What a sham. He puts Bird, McHale, and Parish way at the bottom and Jordan, Pippen, and Grant at the top. One thing his statistical measurements fail to show is that the rest of the Bulls roster was really bad for a championship team and the mid 80's Celtics had Hall of Famers and former all-stars coming off the freaking bench. Of course the production of the Big 3 would be less, they actually had other people on the team who were capable of playing the game of basketball.

There is no need to do apologetics in order to try to cling to the idea that in any ranking on any basketball topic, Celtics need to be on top. No matter what the results are, some fans will be upset and make convoluted arguments to explain why their guys should be on the top.

This stuff really is not a big deal. Statistical analyses like that are mostly for fun. No one is saying that Grant is in the same league as Parish, McHale or Bird. Similarly, Hollinger is not saying that we should ignore qualitative arguments and consider his quantitative analyses as authoritative.

Feel free to come up with your own formulas and post a blog article.

[pearljammer10]

I like how the number four trio is; a) Bryant (rightfully so), (b) Shaq (double rightfully so) aaaaaaaand...b) Glen Rice, haha. My boy Glen!

[Who]

The Kukoc over Rodman part was absolutely ridiculous. PER is an awful stat.

[Rondo2287]

The Kukoc over Rodman part was absolutely ridiculous. PER is an awful stat.

Im with you, I think Rodman is a hall of famer.  Kukoc was good, but not at that level.

[mgent]

The Kukoc over Rodman part was absolutely ridiculous. PER is an awful stat.

This is by far the stupidest part of this list.  Except maybe for Kobe, Gasol, and Bynum over KG, Paul, and Ray.

[LooseCannon]

Did anybody else read Hollinger's article on the most statistically productive Big 3 of all time?

What a sham. He puts Bird, McHale, and Parish way at the bottom and Jordan, Pippen, and Grant at the top. One thing his statistical measurements fail to show is that the rest of the Bulls roster was really bad for a championship team and the mid 80's Celtics had Hall of Famers and former all-stars coming off the freaking bench. Of course the production of the Big 3 would be less, they actually had other people on the team who were capable of playing the game of basketball.

He didn't put them at the bottom.  He ranked them 7th (1986) and 12th (1984) out of 32 championship teams.

I don't think that Hollinger manipulated stats to create a preferred outcome.  I believe that he made an honest attempt to come up with a formula.  Using something like win shares (as seen on basketball-reference.com) would have the 92 Bulls trio ranked higher than Bird/McHale/Parish.

Given that minutes played is part of the formula, this ranking will be biased against teams whose trios include bigs, since big men typically play fewer minutes per game than smaller players.  Also, Kevin Garnett isn't being penalized because the Celtics were blowing out teams, he's being penalized because he played in 71 games (while Ray Allen played in 73 that year).  McHale played in 68 games in the 85-86 season.

If we stipulate that Hollinger's rankings are flawed, can you come up with a better statistical formula?