« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Hollinger stats  (Read 5080 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hollinger stats
« on: April 23, 2011, 11:05:23 AM »

Offline Phil125

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 322
  • Tommy Points: 57
When is ESPN going to figure out that Hollinger doesn't know what he's talking about.  Of the Pantheon of NBA talking heads around he is one of the worst.

His preseason prediction for Paul Pierce:

That's the good news. The bad news? A 33-year-old player coming off triple career highs is almost certainly due for some regression. I'm not talking collapse or anything -- he's in great shape and has had no major injuries -- but he's unlikely to match those numbers in 2010-11, and my projection system pegged him to have one of the league's biggest PER declines.

9-10 per 18.24
projected 10-11 per 15.55
actual per 19.76

One example of a long long list of his numbers not matching reality.

He predicted the decline of the Big 3's PER when actually all 3 posted higher PER than last year.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2011, 11:15:15 AM by Phil125 »
Logged
Re: Hollinger stats
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2011, 11:23:24 AM »

Offline cornbreadsmart

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1706
  • Tommy Points: 106
Hollinger and his calculator need to get a room.
Logged
Re: Hollinger stats
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2011, 11:50:19 AM »

Offline chambers

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7483
  • Tommy Points: 943
  • Boston Celtics= Championships, nothing less.
most of the clowns on ESPN don't really have a clue.
The ones that do are former players or coaches but even those players are selected because of their entertainment value and presentability for the most part.
The problem is that these guys are following every team in the league and never get enough 1 on 1 time with one particular team OR they simply don't know enough about basketball and are journalist who kissed enough ass of brass or fans to get there.

I've always thought that the ESPN commentators are basically there to start rumours and buzz to keep people tuned in and watching regurgitated garbage for 5 days until another new story breaks. Ie: Melo to the Knicks. Remember when these jokers suggested that Melo might go to the Lakers? they ran with that crap for 2 weeks.
I can't wait till CP3 and Howard are coming up for free agency and the fairy tales these guys weave.

Just look at their playoff predictions over the years. Most of them have no clue and these guys get to vote on who gets the MVP!??

ESPN= entertainment and highlights. Some of the Ex players give a good insight (ie Barry, Kenny Smith) and are much smarter than you would actually think, they are just encouraged to goof around with guys like Barkley and Payton to attract sponsors and half wit 'regular' fans who just wanna see dunks and threes.

I guess in the end the reason a lot of people on this board would hate ESPN is because it's not targeted at more serious fans like us, and we hate it when they spin crap like hollingers rankings as a masquerade for 'expert' opinion and dupe casual fans into believing they know what they're talk about.
I wonder how much money the casual NBA fan base has lost wagering on hot tips from the ESPN crew? The figure must be staggering.
Logged
"We are lucky we have a very patient GM that isn't willing to settle for being good and coming close. He wants to win a championship and we have the potential to get there still with our roster and assets."

quoting 'Greg B' on RealGM after 2017 trade deadline.
Read that last line again. One more time.
Re: Hollinger stats
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2011, 11:55:39 AM »

Offline Celticsfan336

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 397
  • Tommy Points: 44
ESPN does exactly what it looks to do. Entertainment. You think because Chris Mullin is an "NBA analyst" he can tell you who the better team is? Their opinions are the same as ours, just they get the contract and get to go on TV. Half of them don't know what they are talking about.

Yesterday, I forget who it was....but he was talking about how the Celtics were the best team in the East with Perkins in the lineup before the All-Star break, and now they are done because they traded him. (not starting a perkins argument) But obviously Perkins didnt play in those games, and it was a Fail.

It's not like analysts study "analyzing" basketball in college like doctors study anatomy, etc.

They are opinions that get televised for entertainment, and they do just that.

BTW....Hollinger is an idiot. I've written to him 10+ times during the season. When the Heat were on their huge losing streak and the Celtics were in first in the East by 3 games and were the second best record in the league, he had them as the 6th best team. That just frustrates me
Logged
Re: Hollinger stats
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2011, 12:23:33 PM »

Offline soap07

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1557
  • Tommy Points: 145
Quote from: Phil125 on April 23, 2011, 11:05:23 AM
When is ESPN going to figure out that Hollinger doesn't know what he's talking about.  Of the Pantheon of NBA talking heads around he is one of the worst.

His preseason prediction for Paul Pierce:

That's the good news. The bad news? A 33-year-old player coming off triple career highs is almost certainly due for some regression. I'm not talking collapse or anything -- he's in great shape and has had no major injuries -- but he's unlikely to match those numbers in 2010-11, and my projection system pegged him to have one of the league's biggest PER declines.

9-10 per 18.24
projected 10-11 per 15.55
actual per 19.76

One example of a long long list of his numbers not matching reality.

He predicted the decline of the Big 3's PER when actually all 3 posted higher PER than last year.

Like any analyst, he gets some things wrong and some things right. He brings a refreshing perspective and certainly watches a ton of basketball. And why is it so out-of-left field to predict that a 33-year-old with the miles that Pierce has would decrease his level of play this year? Pierce defied the norm with his performance this year.
Logged
Re: Hollinger stats
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2011, 12:47:16 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Quote from: Celticsfan336 on April 23, 2011, 11:55:39 AM
BTW....Hollinger is an idiot. I've written to him 10+ times during the season. When the Heat were on their huge losing streak and the Celtics were in first in the East by 3 games and were the second best record in the league, he had them as the 6th best team. That just frustrates me

And we wound up finishing 6th in the regular season.  Sounds like that assessment was spot-on, unfortunately.
Logged
Re: Hollinger stats
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2011, 01:02:25 PM »

Offline banty19

  • Sam Hauser
  • Posts: 159
  • Tommy Points: 25
I think Hollinger's PER is a pretty mediocre stat (Wages of Wins is a little better with the keys being FG% and rebounds). Having said that, I think his estimate for Pierce was pretty spot on. Pierce had a great year in 09-10. At his age, most players decline. His performance this year has defied aging trends for most players in league history.
Logged
Re: Hollinger stats
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2011, 01:04:32 PM »

Offline Celticsfan336

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 397
  • Tommy Points: 44
Quote from: fairweatherfan on April 23, 2011, 12:47:16 PM
Quote from: Celticsfan336 on April 23, 2011, 11:55:39 AM
BTW....Hollinger is an idiot. I've written to him 10+ times during the season. When the Heat were on their huge losing streak and the Celtics were in first in the East by 3 games and were the second best record in the league, he had them as the 6th best team. That just frustrates me

And we wound up finishing 6th in the regular season.  Sounds like that assessment was spot-on, unfortunately.

True. But halfway through the season we were clearly the 2nd or 3rd best team in the league, and the whole season he has had them low. But, Regular Season over and you cant "stat" (if thats a verb) the intangibles of expierience and veteran leadership. The Celtics have that come playoff time.

18
Logged
Re: Hollinger stats
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2011, 01:22:49 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32931
  • Tommy Points: 1738
  • What a Pub Should Be
I'm by no means a fan of Hollinger myself but is it really inconceivable to predict that the productions of our Big Three would go down this year? Check their birthdates.   ::)
Logged


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team
Re: Hollinger stats
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2011, 01:55:33 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
This is why I am loving NBATV more and more each day.
Logged
Re: Hollinger stats
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2011, 02:20:38 PM »

Offline anthony83

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 448
  • Tommy Points: 36

 ESPN and Hollinger are idiots.

 Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline. YOU THE MEDIA

GO CELTICS¡¡¡
Logged

Twitter: @Theanswer83
Re: Hollinger stats
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2011, 02:53:42 PM »

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4674
  • Tommy Points: 1043
I can't stand Hollinger.

For a guy employed as a basketball analyst, it seems like he rarely watches games. He is a mathematician trying to apply formulas to a sport. I could debate how flawed his Power Rankings are, but if he has many supporters.


90% of the basketball (and baseball - the NFL and NHL guys seem legit) analysts that work for ESPN are awful. The former players make some sense, but they are usually biased.

Tim Legler is good. Bruce Bowen is OK.

Kenny Smith on TNT is probably the best though.
Logged
CELTICS 2024
Re: Hollinger stats
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2011, 05:54:22 PM »

Offline Jaycelt

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 653
  • Tommy Points: 7
Quote from: banty19 on April 23, 2011, 01:02:25 PM
I think Hollinger's PER is a pretty mediocre stat (Wages of Wins is a little better with the keys being FG% and rebounds). Having said that, I think his estimate for Pierce was pretty spot on. Pierce had a great year in 09-10. At his age, most players decline. His performance this year has defied aging trends for most players in league history.

To be pretty spot on it would have had to be somwhere in the vicinity of being correct.  Obviously it wasn't, not even close. 
Logged
Re: Hollinger stats
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2011, 07:16:41 PM »

Offline KobeShesNotConsenting!

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 411
  • Tommy Points: 132
Hollinger thinks the celtics are one of the best teams of the generation.
Logged
Re: Hollinger stats
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2011, 08:21:18 PM »

Offline Celticsfan336

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 397
  • Tommy Points: 44
Quote from: GreenEnvy on April 23, 2011, 02:53:42 PM
I can't stand Hollinger.

For a guy employed as a basketball analyst, it seems like he rarely watches games. He is a mathematician trying to apply formulas to a sport. I could debate how flawed his Power Rankings are, but if he has many supporters.


90% of the basketball (and baseball - the NFL and NHL guys seem legit) analysts that work for ESPN are awful. The former players make some sense, but they are usually biased.

Tim Legler is good. Bruce Bowen is OK.

Kenny Smith on TNT is probably the best though.

magic and barry arent bad. i hate mullin
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »