Hollinger Rankings: C's #11

[byennie]

Hollinger's rankings are no more valid than any informed opinion.  They're just arbitrary stats put into a formula, intended to spit out a supposed "unbiased" set of rankings.  Whatever.

Personally, in relation to sports, I have very little use for stats.  I believe informed, knowledgeable, opinion based analysis is more accurate.

I will say this though, Hollinger is no fool.  He is knowledgeable about basketball.  On the few occasions when he just gives his opinion, he is generally pretty accurate in his analysis.  The problem is, he's just too tied to his "stats" overall.

The main thing I take away from his rankings or "PER, is he's just trying to provide a different point of view, that some readers may be interested in.  Basically, it's his way of trying to play to a specific audience that is inclined to find this point of view valid.  That, and it creates a highly controversial point of debate, therefore generating more viewership for his employer.

I'm guessing you weren't a fan of MoneyBall. You know, the book + movie about how a little statistical analysis trumped 150 years of baseball's "opinion based analysis". There's clearly room for both types of analysis, but saying that opinion based analysis is more accurate is almost certainly false. Unless you think basketball or baseball is an exception?

All that said, you can obviously give a wrong analysis, or put too much weight on something.

PER has it's faults, but I really encourage people to set aside their assumptions and carefully read Hollinger's own explanations of these things. He's quite aware of some of their shortcomings but that doesn't make them less useful than traditional stats. From any sort of statistical point of view, traditional per-game averages were never designed to be good indicators of how good a player is. They're just the easiest to consume.

Your point about readership is valid too. FWIW what I appreciate about Hollinger is that he actually provides a written scouting report for every NBA player which is way more interesting that the PER stats.

[KGs Knee]

Yeah, you're wrong about that.

He's wrong that Hollinger doesn't watch basketball, but he IS right in that Hollinger's stats are not very sound.

Hollinger bases most of his work off of PER and +/-, which are notoriously fickle numbers that don't in any way reflect performance. For example, if you JUST look at the season PER and +/- averages, and use it to extrapolate the record of a team, you will usually be WAY off. Therefore it isn't a good indicator of performance, because it can't be used retroactively to EXPLAIN performance. This is also what leads to players like Carmelo Anthony being rated as superstars, because of high PERs, despite being incredibly inefficient players.

There are much better metrics out there (though none are perfect). WP/WP48, WS/WS48 (there is a different between Wins Shared and Wins Produced), efficiency differentials, and others can all be used to explain performance.

You're referring to the wrong numbers. Hollinger's rankings are not based on PER (the validity of which is a different discussion). They're based on margins of victory, strength of schedule, amongst others.

Also, for all his faults, calling Carmelo Anthony an incredibly inefficient player isn't accurate.

I wouldn't even call him inefficient.  I mean if you are looking at purely rates, Anthony and Pierce are nearly identical players in TS%, eFG%, REB%, AST%, TOV%, BLK%, STL%, USG%, etc.  Anthony is better in some and Pierce is better in some, but none are really significantly in favor of one over the other.  Pierce is a better defender (but even the gap there is inflated by respective teams and systems). 

Yes, exactly. The composition of the Knicks is inefficient. Anthony, himself, isn't. In fact, PP's career path is probably a good barometer for where Anthony will go.

I'd agree with this assesment.

People tend to forget Pierce was once considerd to be a very selfish and immature player.  Sure, he was super talented, but, he hasn't always been as efficient as he is now.

Do people not remember all the spin moves into traffic and resulting turnovers from trying to do everything himself?  Warranted or not, due to his lack of quality teammates, he made plenty of mistakes and chucked the ball quite a bit.

[kozlodoev]

Yeah, you're wrong about that.

He's wrong that Hollinger doesn't watch basketball, but he IS right in that Hollinger's stats are not very sound.

Hollinger bases most of his work off of PER and +/-, which are notoriously fickle numbers that don't in any way reflect performance. For example, if you JUST look at the season PER and +/- averages, and use it to extrapolate the record of a team, you will usually be WAY off. Therefore it isn't a good indicator of performance, because it can't be used retroactively to EXPLAIN performance. This is also what leads to players like Carmelo Anthony being rated as superstars, because of high PERs, despite being incredibly inefficient players.

There are much better metrics out there (though none are perfect). WP/WP48, WS/WS48 (there is a different between Wins Shared and Wins Produced), efficiency differentials, and others can all be used to explain performance.

Among statisticians, Hollinger is not very respected. He's a great sports analyst, but not really a great numbers guy (he's just better at it than other ESPN analysts).

Erm. He doesn't use PER or +/- in the rankings. As a matter of fact, I don't think he uses any individual stats in the rankings.

[Fafnir]

Hollinger's rankings are no more valid than any informed opinion.  They're just arbitrary stats put into a formula, intended to spit out a supposed "unbiased" set of rankings.  Whatever.

Personally, in relation to sports, I have very little use for stats.  I believe informed, knowledgeable, opinion based analysis is more accurate.

I will say this though, Hollinger is no fool.  He is knowledgeable about basketball.  On the few occasions when he just gives his opinion, he is generally pretty accurate in his analysis.  The problem is, he's just too tied to his "stats" overall.

The main thing I take away from his rankings or "PER, is he's just trying to provide a different point of view, that some readers may be interested in.  Basically, it's his way of trying to play to a specific audience that is inclined to find this point of view valid.  That, and it creates a highly controversial point of debate, therefore generating more viewership for his employer.

I'm guessing you weren't a fan of MoneyBall. You know, the book + movie about how a little statistical analysis trumped 150 years of baseball's "opinion based analysis". There's clearly room for both types of analysis, but saying that opinion based analysis is more accurate is almost certainly false. Unless you think basketball or baseball is an exception?

All that said, you can obviously give a wrong analysis, or put too much weight on something.

While I agree with your point in general that you should be open to new ways of analyzing things Moneyball doesn't fit the description you just gave.

[byennie]

While I agree with your point in general that you should be open to new ways of analyzing things Moneyball doesn't fit the description you just gave.

How so? A team (the Oakland A's) used alternative statistical measures to identify good values on players who other teams undervalued, specifically because those other teams were still using intuitive stats (batting average, homeruns, etc) driven by an overwhelming reliance on opinion. Making things a bit more scientific completely changed not only baseball, but spread to other sports including basketball.

[KGs Knee]

Hollinger's rankings are no more valid than any informed opinion.  They're just arbitrary stats put into a formula, intended to spit out a supposed "unbiased" set of rankings.  Whatever.

Personally, in relation to sports, I have very little use for stats.  I believe informed, knowledgeable, opinion based analysis is more accurate.

I will say this though, Hollinger is no fool.  He is knowledgeable about basketball.  On the few occasions when he just gives his opinion, he is generally pretty accurate in his analysis.  The problem is, he's just too tied to his "stats" overall.

The main thing I take away from his rankings or "PER, is he's just trying to provide a different point of view, that some readers may be interested in.  Basically, it's his way of trying to play to a specific audience that is inclined to find this point of view valid.  That, and it creates a highly controversial point of debate, therefore generating more viewership for his employer.

I'm guessing you weren't a fan of MoneyBall. You know, the book + movie about how a little statistical analysis trumped 150 years of baseball's "opinion based analysis". There's clearly room for both types of analysis, but saying that opinion based analysis is more accurate is almost certainly false. Unless you think basketball or baseball is an exception?

All that said, you can obviously give a wrong analysis, or put too much weight on something.

PER has it's faults, but I really encourage people to set aside their assumptions and carefully read Hollinger's own explanations of these things. He's quite aware of some of their shortcomings but that doesn't make them less useful than traditional stats. From any sort of statistical point of view, traditional per-game averages were never designed to be good indicators of how good a player is. They're just the easiest to consume.

Your point about readership is valid too. FWIW what I appreciate about Hollinger is that he actually provides a written scouting report for every NBA player which is way more interesting that the PER stats.

Absolutely not a fan of Moneyball.  To me, it was nothing more than an over-sensationalized, agenda based "Hollywood" story.

What, exactly, did the Oakland A's ever win?  A couple of division titles, and a bunch of 1st round playoff exits.  Big-whoop!

I have yet to see much substantial evidence that statistical based scouting or player analysis is any more effective than traditional means.  I will always believe the "eye test" is more effective.

Another example of an over-hyped GM who follows in this mold would be Daryl Morey.  People somehow claim him to be this sort of savant, yet what has Houston won?

Anyway, now that I've ranted, I'll still give credit where it is due. As I stated before, Hollinger IS knoledgeable about basketball.  He just has an agenda, and pushes it for his own financial benefit.  I won't fault him for this.

[Fafnir]

While I agree with your point in general that you should be open to new ways of analyzing things Moneyball doesn't fit the description you just gave.

How so? A team (the Oakland A's) used alternative statistical measures to identify good values on players who other teams undervalued, specifically because those other teams were still using intuitive stats (batting average, homeruns, etc) driven by an overwhelming reliance on opinion. Making things a bit more scientific completely changed not only baseball, but spread to other sports including basketball.

Because it didn't trump anything really, it allowed low payroll Oakland cobble together an offense based on OBP guys who they were able to sign to lower value contracts than higher BA and SLG guys. Those high BA and SLG players were still really valuable for teams after all.

Not to mention that most of their wins those years were based on a stacked pitching rotation that had nothing to do with money ball.

And Oakland didn't change baseball, stats did which was coming up in other organizations at the same time. They just put out a book about Oakland.

[Ersatz]

My fundamental problem with criticisms of Hollinger is that they're often so lazy. Just saying "he doesn't even watch the games" is hopelessly empty (and inaccurate; he knows more about hoops than the vast majority of the general public, which even a cursory reading of his work makes clear).

Yup. I disagree with him sometimes, but he knows what he's talking about. And it's not all stat geekery: if you read his chats, he often says, when people ask him his opinion of a team, things like, I need to see them in action before I can say for sure. He definitely watches basketball, and he certainly puts in stock in what he sees on the court, not just the stat sheet.

[FallGuy]

I have yet to see much substantial evidence that statistical based scouting or player analysis is any more effective than traditional means.  I will always believe the "eye test" is more effective.

It doesn't seem like you've spent much time examining the stats to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy.

[KGs Knee]

I have yet to see much substantial evidence that statistical based scouting or player analysis is any more effective than traditional means.  I will always believe the "eye test" is more effective.

It doesn't seem like you've spent much time examining the stats to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy.

Well, feel free to provide me with some evidence showing where statisical based scouting, player analysis or otherwise has been any more instrumental in winning championships than any other means.

I've found none.

[byennie]

Absolutely not a fan of Moneyball.  To me, it was nothing more than an over-sensationalized, agenda based "Hollywood" story.

What, exactly, did the Oakland A's ever win?  A couple of division titles, and a bunch of 1st round playoff exits.  Big-whoop!

I have yet to see much substantial evidence that statistical based scouting or player analysis is any more effective than traditional means.  I will always believe the "eye test" is more effective.

Another example of an over-hyped GM who follows in this mold would be Daryl Morey.  People somehow claim him to be this sort of savant, yet what has Houston won?

Anyway, now that I've ranted, I'll still give credit where it is due. As I stated before, Hollinger IS knoledgeable about basketball.  He just has an agenda, and pushes it for his own financial benefit.  I won't fault him for this.

Take the Hollywood movie out of it for a second - all of this happened long before the movie. While Oakland held this edge, i.e every other team had not adopted their methods, they won 4 division titles in 6 years despite having one of the league's lowest payrolls. It is pretty much a fact that this was a direct result of their statistical analysis. They lost their edge when those same players became valued by other teams, the MoneyBall book came out, and all of the methods were well known. What have the A's done since 2006, around which time the rest of the league caught up (and the Red Sox tried to hire Beane)? Zero division titles. Yes, they never reached the World Series. But I think if you asked GMs and execs from MLB, 100% would instantly say "MoneyBall" was a huge success that changed the game, whether it was overdramatized in Hollywood or not.

It seems to me that you are willfully ignoring the fact that this type of statistical analysis is practically a war between EVERY MLB and NBA team these days. I'm not sure what your point is with Daryl Morey. Maybe you read something about his methods? EVERY team including the Mavericks, Lakers and Celtics invest heavily in stats. Mark Cuban is a huge stat geek, for example. They have conferences around this stuff which every team attends.

I'm not saying throw out traditional scouting, but if you think the Oakland A's MoneyBall era was "big-whoop" then you're just ignoring history to support your own opinion.

[FallGuy]

I have yet to see much substantial evidence that statistical based scouting or player analysis is any more effective than traditional means.  I will always believe the "eye test" is more effective.

It doesn't seem like you've spent much time examining the stats to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy.

Well, feel free to provide me with some evidence showing where statisical based scouting, player analysis or otherwise has been any more instrumental in winning championships than any other means.

I've found none.

Where have you looked? I really don't think you've thought hard about this at all. Happy to be proven wrong.

[FallGuy]

I have yet to see much substantial evidence that statistical based scouting or player analysis is any more effective than traditional means.  I will always believe the "eye test" is more effective.

It doesn't seem like you've spent much time examining the stats to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy.

Well, feel free to provide me with some evidence showing where statisical based scouting, player analysis or otherwise has been any more instrumental in winning championships than any other means.

I've found none.

Although to avoid accusations of dodging your question, try the 2007-08 Boston Celtics. Heavily focused on statistically based analysis. Won championship.

[byennie]

While I agree with your point in general that you should be open to new ways of analyzing things Moneyball doesn't fit the description you just gave.

How so? A team (the Oakland A's) used alternative statistical measures to identify good values on players who other teams undervalued, specifically because those other teams were still using intuitive stats (batting average, homeruns, etc) driven by an overwhelming reliance on opinion. Making things a bit more scientific completely changed not only baseball, but spread to other sports including basketball.

Because it didn't trump anything really, it allowed low payroll Oakland cobble together an offense based on OBP guys who they were able to sign to lower value contracts than higher BA and SLG guys. Those high BA and SLG players were still really valuable for teams after all.

Not to mention that most of their wins those years were based on a stacked pitching rotation that had nothing to do with money ball.

And Oakland didn't change baseball, stats did which was coming up in other organizations at the same time. They just put out a book about Oakland.

This just shows you have know idea what MoneyBall was/is. OBP is a simple example of a measure used, but sabermetrics is much more deep.

You do realize that pitching is part of what they analyzed, right? That pitching staff didn't rain down from heaven, they developed it in-house.

[byennie]

Or Theo Epstein's Boston Red Sox. They hired Bill James, the "father" of sabermetrics and won 2 World Series while employing his principles heavily.