Hollinger says "Heat will breeze past us easily in the second round"

[LB3533]

I just cannot forsee all 3 of Miami's stars playing well against us.

In most cases against us, 2 out of 3 have had poor games against us in the RS.

Miami is going to struggle against us.

I am going 4-1, but wouldn't be surprised with another sweep.

[PosImpos]

I just cannot forsee all 3 of Miami's stars playing well against us.

In most cases against us, 2 out of 3 have had poor games against us in the RS.

Miami is going to struggle against us.

I am going 4-1, but wouldn't be surprised with another sweep.

This is silly.  The Heat are an extremely talented team.  Most likely scenario, if the C's are going to beat the Heat, is 6 games.

If the Heat are going to win, it'll most likely be in 5 games or 7.

[slamtheking]

Hollinger --> proof that relying on stats to evaluate players and teams in the NBA is a flawed belief system at best.

When I see people on the site quoting stats to back up their beliefs about the C's (good or bad), I can't help but equate them with Hollinger and his track record on this team (which isn't very good).

Watching the games is a far better tool at evaluating the play of a team.  It can lead to subjective opinions but watching a team reveals a lot more about how they're playing

As much as stats can go completely awry, especially when you lean heavily on a few like Hollinger does, absolutely nothing compares to the error rate of subjective opinions.  

Subjective opinions only look good when evaluated...well, subjectively, and usually by the person holding the opinion.  The easiest example of this is selectively remembering your opinions that were correct, forgetting the ones that were way off, and spinning the kinda-right, kinda-wrong opinions into having been right all along.  

Stats aren't perfect by any means, but they help to provide structure and context to what we actually see on the court.  That's why so many fans now use them to some degree.

My favorite example of this is the post in another thread bashing Hollinger's predictions with GIFs where he was wrong.

08 Finals
10 First Round
10 Second Round
10 ECF

They leave out the 10 Finals, the 08 First Round, 08 Second Round, etc...

Yeah I know which post you're referring to - the irony of the whole thing is that I'm not really a fan of Hollinger or his pet stats, but a lot of the opinions here are so off-the-wall that I wind up defending him all the time.  He's not some guru but he's no clueless idiot either.

But if I had to classify him as one, at least when it comes to basketball, I'd pick the latter.

Seems I kicked off quite the feedback string.

My personal opinion of statistical analysis for sports is that of all the sports, the sport that it applies to fairly well is baseball and to a lesser extent, football.  Basketball (and hockey even more so) is such a fluid game that stats can only provide a small glimpse into what's going on in the game and a player or team's chances of success (or failure).  

Take the rebounding debates that have been a popular topic here.  There is one person (above all others and I'm not picking on that person, just using this as an example of someone that sticks to statistics adamantly to back their opinion/viewpoint.  I actually think this person has made some good commentary when not quoting stats.) that continuously points to rebounding statistics to say the C's are actually a good rebounding team regardless of what the rest of Celtics Nation sees occur in a game.  
Personally, when I watch the game and see the other team getting offensive rebounds, regardless of whether they're multiple ones during a few trips down the floor and even if the other team doesn't eventually score, I have an issue/concern with that and consider it a problem.  If the other team gets over 10 offensive rebounds, I don't care if it's because the other team missed 40 or 50 shots (which makes the C's look like they're getting 75% - 80% defensive rebound rate respectively), that total number of offensive rebounds is still 10 (or more) extra shots the other team is getting that could (or did) result in extra points.  

This paragraph is the exact reason you need rebound rates to judge rebounding, yet its given as an argument to reject them?  

The Celtics did a solid job on the boards in Game 4 against the Knicks overall. They pulled in 78% of their defensive boards, won the rebounding margin by +11. Yet because the Knicks got 13 ORebs the C's actually did poorly because they hit a number you've decided is too many?

Edit: I had the rebounding margin wrong it was +11 not +2

I used 10 as an example, it's not a number I hang my hat on.  My point is simply this: relying on stats as the basis of evaluating play or predicting a team's success is flawed.  Are stats a complete waste of time?  No.  Some stats have their place and can help in evaluation but using them in the absence of observation will lead to some truly poor prognostication (ala Hollinger)

[slamtheking]

Take the rebounding debates that have been a popular topic here.  There is one person (above all others and I'm not picking on that person, just using this as an example of someone that sticks to statistics adamantly to back their opinion/viewpoint.  I actually think this person has made some good commentary when not quoting stats.) that continuously points to rebounding statistics to say the C's are actually a good rebounding team regardless of what the rest of Celtics Nation sees occur in a game. 
Personally, when I watch the game and see the other team getting offensive rebounds, regardless of whether they're multiple ones during a few trips down the floor and even if the other team doesn't eventually score, I have an issue/concern with that and consider it a problem.  If the other team gets over 10 offensive rebounds, I don't care if it's because the other team missed 40 or 50 shots (which makes the C's look like they're getting 75% - 80% defensive rebound rate respectively), that total number of offensive rebounds is still 10 (or more) extra shots the other team is getting that could (or did) result in extra points. 

  A lot of times stats give a perspective on things that people don't always get when they watch the games. A lot of people will watch the Celts play and (like you) decide that the amount of offensive rebounds they give up is a big problem for them. A check of the stats would show that most teams allow a higher percentage of defensive rebounds than the Celts. If they're better than average at something does it make sense to say that they do it poorly?

It's not all about volume.  it's a combination of volume and percentage.  If a team, such as the C's, forces a low shooting percentage and thus a higher volume of offensive rebound opportunities, the C's need to get a higher volume and thus a higher percentage of rebounds to make their defensive efforts pay off. 
Watching the competitors get an offensive rebound is frustrating enough but watching the other team get 2, 3 sometimes 4 rebounds on the same trip down floor is just absolutely infuriating. 
Add in those times when the team isn't 'gang rebounding' to help on the boards or when Doc has a frontcourt of BBD and Green (for example) resulting in those offensive rebounds, there's plenty of legitimate arguments to be made about how the C's could do better.  Stats don't tell the whole story about why the total rebounds or % turned out to be what it was. 
Observation should play a strong part in evaluating a team or player which is my basic point -- Hollinger's blind adherance to statistics is incredibly flawed for determining a team's success.

[Celticsfan336]

Hollinger doesnt know his basketball. He knows his math formulas, cause he was a geek growing up, and obviously just loves Lebron Wade and Bosh and buys into hype. I remeber when the Heat were struggling he still had them as the best team in the league.

He is living proof that "stats dont lie" is a false statement

[BballTim]

Take the rebounding debates that have been a popular topic here.  There is one person (above all others and I'm not picking on that person, just using this as an example of someone that sticks to statistics adamantly to back their opinion/viewpoint.  I actually think this person has made some good commentary when not quoting stats.) that continuously points to rebounding statistics to say the C's are actually a good rebounding team regardless of what the rest of Celtics Nation sees occur in a game. 
Personally, when I watch the game and see the other team getting offensive rebounds, regardless of whether they're multiple ones during a few trips down the floor and even if the other team doesn't eventually score, I have an issue/concern with that and consider it a problem.  If the other team gets over 10 offensive rebounds, I don't care if it's because the other team missed 40 or 50 shots (which makes the C's look like they're getting 75% - 80% defensive rebound rate respectively), that total number of offensive rebounds is still 10 (or more) extra shots the other team is getting that could (or did) result in extra points. 

  A lot of times stats give a perspective on things that people don't always get when they watch the games. A lot of people will watch the Celts play and (like you) decide that the amount of offensive rebounds they give up is a big problem for them. A check of the stats would show that most teams allow a higher percentage of defensive rebounds than the Celts. If they're better than average at something does it make sense to say that they do it poorly?

It's not all about volume.  it's a combination of volume and percentage.  If a team, such as the C's, forces a low shooting percentage and thus a higher volume of offensive rebound opportunities, the C's need to get a higher volume and thus a higher percentage of rebounds to make their defensive efforts pay off. 
Watching the competitors get an offensive rebound is frustrating enough but watching the other team get 2, 3 sometimes 4 rebounds on the same trip down floor is just absolutely infuriating. 
Add in those times when the team isn't 'gang rebounding' to help on the boards or when Doc has a frontcourt of BBD and Green (for example) resulting in those offensive rebounds, there's plenty of legitimate arguments to be made about how the C's could do better.  Stats don't tell the whole story about why the total rebounds or % turned out to be what it was. 
Observation should play a strong part in evaluating a team or player which is my basic point -- Hollinger's blind adherance to statistics is incredibly flawed for determining a team's success.

  The Celts are in the top 3rd of the league in fewest offensive rebounds allowed, both in percent and volume. The Celts could rebound better (I'm also less than thrilled with the Baby-Green combo). They play at a slow pace and force a lot of turnovers so they're near the top of the league in fewest shots allowed. The volume of missed shots by the opposition is pretty low.

[Celticsfan336]

I say everyone on this forum Emails this thread to Hollinger so that it is inevitable he reads it.

[j804]

while were at it with heat/celtics

here is postgame presser from heat and philly just now, pretty sure they will speak on us

know thy enemy  

http://www.nba.com/live1/

[LooseCannon]

I would love to hear an explanation though lol.

I'm sure it will involve differential, PER, etc.

His very own Power Rankings don't take into account player injury, but I'm sure he will use Amar'e and Billups injuries as a reason why Boston has looked so good in the playoffs.

It's not hard to imagine the reasons Hollinger would give.  The Celtics' poor play in the regular season after "The Trade".  Relatively poor rebounding.  Too many turnovers.  Relative inability to just blow a team out of the water and coast to an easy victory compared to other top teams.  (The apparent lack of just outright stepping on the necks of inferior teams is why the Celtics are not rated as highly as some would like in Hollinger's power rankings.)

A lot of Hollinger's likely criticisms of the Celtics are just the same opinions as this message board's pessimists backed by number crunching.

[kozlodoev]

Tried to give him a way out, but he didn't take it:

BudWC (Boston)

Do you stand by your ridiculous statement that Miami will breeze by Boston easily in the next round?
John Hollinger  (3:24 PM)

Yep. Five games.

I am not sure what you expected. The guy has an opinion -- is he supposed to change it because you asked?

Using the words "breeze by easily" was the problem.

If he'd said Miami in 5 nail-biters, I think people would have less issue with that.

You know what, I think being John Hollinger was the problem.

Boston had 3 nail-biters in the series against the Knicks, and I've heard no-one objecting when the media said we breezed by them easily.

[slamtheking]

Take the rebounding debates that have been a popular topic here.  There is one person (above all others and I'm not picking on that person, just using this as an example of someone that sticks to statistics adamantly to back their opinion/viewpoint.  I actually think this person has made some good commentary when not quoting stats.) that continuously points to rebounding statistics to say the C's are actually a good rebounding team regardless of what the rest of Celtics Nation sees occur in a game. 
Personally, when I watch the game and see the other team getting offensive rebounds, regardless of whether they're multiple ones during a few trips down the floor and even if the other team doesn't eventually score, I have an issue/concern with that and consider it a problem.  If the other team gets over 10 offensive rebounds, I don't care if it's because the other team missed 40 or 50 shots (which makes the C's look like they're getting 75% - 80% defensive rebound rate respectively), that total number of offensive rebounds is still 10 (or more) extra shots the other team is getting that could (or did) result in extra points. 

  A lot of times stats give a perspective on things that people don't always get when they watch the games. A lot of people will watch the Celts play and (like you) decide that the amount of offensive rebounds they give up is a big problem for them. A check of the stats would show that most teams allow a higher percentage of defensive rebounds than the Celts. If they're better than average at something does it make sense to say that they do it poorly?

It's not all about volume.  it's a combination of volume and percentage.  If a team, such as the C's, forces a low shooting percentage and thus a higher volume of offensive rebound opportunities, the C's need to get a higher volume and thus a higher percentage of rebounds to make their defensive efforts pay off. 
Watching the competitors get an offensive rebound is frustrating enough but watching the other team get 2, 3 sometimes 4 rebounds on the same trip down floor is just absolutely infuriating. 
Add in those times when the team isn't 'gang rebounding' to help on the boards or when Doc has a frontcourt of BBD and Green (for example) resulting in those offensive rebounds, there's plenty of legitimate arguments to be made about how the C's could do better.  Stats don't tell the whole story about why the total rebounds or % turned out to be what it was. 
Observation should play a strong part in evaluating a team or player which is my basic point -- Hollinger's blind adherance to statistics is incredibly flawed for determining a team's success.

  The Celts are in the top 3rd of the league in fewest offensive rebounds allowed, both in percent and volume. The Celts could rebound better (I'm also less than thrilled with the Baby-Green combo). They play at a slow pace and force a lot of turnovers so they're near the top of the league in fewest shots allowed. The volume of missed shots by the opposition is pretty low.

I think we're pretty much on the same page.  Stats have their place as does observation.  Each in isolation will not provide a quality evaluation but used together (reasonably), a better understanding of how a team performs can be achieved.

[BballTim]

Take the rebounding debates that have been a popular topic here.  There is one person (above all others and I'm not picking on that person, just using this as an example of someone that sticks to statistics adamantly to back their opinion/viewpoint.  I actually think this person has made some good commentary when not quoting stats.) that continuously points to rebounding statistics to say the C's are actually a good rebounding team regardless of what the rest of Celtics Nation sees occur in a game. 
Personally, when I watch the game and see the other team getting offensive rebounds, regardless of whether they're multiple ones during a few trips down the floor and even if the other team doesn't eventually score, I have an issue/concern with that and consider it a problem.  If the other team gets over 10 offensive rebounds, I don't care if it's because the other team missed 40 or 50 shots (which makes the C's look like they're getting 75% - 80% defensive rebound rate respectively), that total number of offensive rebounds is still 10 (or more) extra shots the other team is getting that could (or did) result in extra points. 

  A lot of times stats give a perspective on things that people don't always get when they watch the games. A lot of people will watch the Celts play and (like you) decide that the amount of offensive rebounds they give up is a big problem for them. A check of the stats would show that most teams allow a higher percentage of defensive rebounds than the Celts. If they're better than average at something does it make sense to say that they do it poorly?

It's not all about volume.  it's a combination of volume and percentage.  If a team, such as the C's, forces a low shooting percentage and thus a higher volume of offensive rebound opportunities, the C's need to get a higher volume and thus a higher percentage of rebounds to make their defensive efforts pay off. 
Watching the competitors get an offensive rebound is frustrating enough but watching the other team get 2, 3 sometimes 4 rebounds on the same trip down floor is just absolutely infuriating. 
Add in those times when the team isn't 'gang rebounding' to help on the boards or when Doc has a frontcourt of BBD and Green (for example) resulting in those offensive rebounds, there's plenty of legitimate arguments to be made about how the C's could do better.  Stats don't tell the whole story about why the total rebounds or % turned out to be what it was. 
Observation should play a strong part in evaluating a team or player which is my basic point -- Hollinger's blind adherance to statistics is incredibly flawed for determining a team's success.

  The Celts are in the top 3rd of the league in fewest offensive rebounds allowed, both in percent and volume. The Celts could rebound better (I'm also less than thrilled with the Baby-Green combo). They play at a slow pace and force a lot of turnovers so they're near the top of the league in fewest shots allowed. The volume of missed shots by the opposition is pretty low.

I think we're pretty much on the same page.  Stats have their place as does observation.  Each in isolation will not provide a quality evaluation but used together (reasonably), a better understanding of how a team performs can be achieved.

  Agreed.

[Ersatz]

People: Hollinger is many things, but an idiot, which he's been called at least 20 times on this thread, he is not. I think he's wrong, but he's got a method and it's a solid one: regular season performance, particularly point differential, is the leading indicator of postseason performance. There is historical precedence for this thesis, so he's not stupid for noticing it and using that info to do part of what ESPN pays him for: to predict the outcomes of series.

That said, I think his cocksure "breeze past" is ridiculous, because it's based in large part on something he warns against at other times: namely, the result of one game (the last Heat-Celtics game). Also, I don't think he recognizes the extent to which the Heat's large margin of victory comes in part from having run up the score on bad teams. Because he doesn't collapse runaway scores, their margin is inflated. Finally part of it also is that he's hanging on to his model even though the Celtics (and the Lakers) have given lie to it the last couple years, with their often poor regular season performances.

You can accuse Hollinger of stubbornness, but not idiocy.

[kozlodoev]

Also, I don't think he recognizes the extent to which the Heat's large margin of victory comes in part from having run up the score on bad teams. Because he doesn't collapse runaway scores, their margin is inflated.

I am sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. If you "collapse" runaway scores, then the whole "margin of victory" concept becomes rather pointless.

To address the issue you're concerned with, one may be better served examining the median margin rather than the mean margin.

[BballTim]

People: Hollinger is many things, but an idiot, which he's been called at least 20 times on this thread, he is not. I think he's wrong, but he's got a method and it's a solid one: regular season performance, particularly point differential, is the leading indicator of postseason performance. There is historical precedence for this thesis, so he's not stupid for noticing it and using that info to do part of what ESPN pays him for: to predict the outcomes of series.

That said, I think his cocksure "breeze past" is ridiculous, because it's based in large part on something he warns against at other times: namely, the result of one game (the last Heat-Celtics game). Also, I don't think he recognizes the extent to which the Heat's large margin of victory comes in part from having run up the score on bad teams. Because he doesn't collapse runaway scores, their margin is inflated. Finally part of it also is that he's hanging on to his model even though the Celtics (and the Lakers) have given lie to it the last couple years, with their often poor regular season performances.

You can accuse Hollinger of stubbornness, but not idiocy.

  It's worth pointing out that you claim that Hollinger's prediction on the series was ridiculous in the middle of a post chastising people for calling him an idiot.