John Hollinger's monopolization of basketball statistics

[ianboyextreme]

Glancing at the newest team rankings as well as reading an article posted recently on Celticsblog about Rondo's place in history has really made me realize this.
Why are the formulas this man has created become considered the infalliable answer to looking deeper into basketball? Who decided that John Hollinger's brain is the golden mind of stat analasys? Is it cause he works for ESPN? I think probably.
On a conspiracy tip, what if ESPN hired this guy to create stats that would glorify the players they want to be admired?
Thats half in jest (half), but really, are there any other guys out there creating their own advanced stats? Year after year Hollinger comes out and gives everyone the same ignorant downplaying of the Celtics and year after year he is made to look kind of stupid. Who knows of other stat dudes?

[bfrombleacher]

http://www.thenbageek.com/

He's a Wolves fan. Did pan our Jeff Green signing quite seriously but otherwise I think he's quite objective.

[mctyson]

He by no means has a monopolization of basketball stats.  You could argue that all of these guys, in theory, have lifted from Bill James.  Nothing they are doing is revolutionary.

The Celtics actually use a bunch of stuff from MIT for evaluating players and performance.  I don't think they pay any attention to Hollinger.

Having said that, Hollinger is a good source.  One of many.  If you hate reading him go to basketballreference.com for your numbers.

[kozlodoev]

Glancing at the newest team rankings as well as reading an article posted recently on Celticsblog about Rondo's place in history has really made me realize this.
Why are the formulas this man has created become considered the infalliable answer to looking deeper into basketball? Who decided that John Hollinger's brain is the golden mind of stat analasys? Is it cause he works for ESPN? I think probably.

I'm sure you can point to dozens of alternatives of "ignored" statistical sources that have the same level of sophistication and are being unjustly ignored from the media. Oh wait...

Year after year Hollinger comes out and gives everyone the same ignorant downplaying of the Celtics and year after year he is made to look kind of stupid. Who knows of other stat dudes?

Except this is not true.

[BballTim]

  There are plenty of other sites, quite a few have home-brewed stats.

  Start with:

http://courtsideanalyst.wordpress.com/

  If you scroll down a little, on the right hand side of the page there are links to a number of other nba blogs (who similarly have links to other sites on their web pages). Check out some of those, some are interesting.

[RyNye]

John Hollinger is far from the only stat guy.

That said, it DOES amaze me that PER is still the standard metric used, because it is really a terrible measure. It doesn't take into account defense, which is half of the entire danged game! It also overrates PPG, while underrating FG%, which is idiotic (even if you give the worst shooter in the league enough possessions they will score 20 points, and PER will think they are a superstar, even though they are the worst shooter).

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/10/09/just-give-them-more-shots/

[Taklamar]

I doubt this is an education issue but here you go;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APBRmetrics

"On a conspiracy tip, what if ESPN hired this guy to create stats that would glorify the players they want to be admired?"

The formula for PER is published; feel free to show what part of the formula is used to glorify players that ESPN wishes to promote.

Who considers his stats infallible?  Hollinger doesn't;

http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2850240

"Bear in mind that PER is not the final, once-and-for-all evaluation of a player's accomplishments during the season. This is especially true for defensive specialists -- such as Quinton Ross and Jason Collins -- who don't get many blocks or steals.

What PER can do, however, is summarize a player's statistical accomplishments in a single number. That allows us to unify the disparate data on each player we try to track in our heads (e.g., Corey Maggette: free-throw machine, good rebounder, decent shooter, poor passer, etc.) so that we can move on to evaluating what might be missing from the stats."

[kozlodoev]

Yes there are plenty of "sites" out there. That's why I specifically mentioned level of sophistication. Hollinger's system is not without flaws, but the reason nothing else has gained traction is that there really isn't any better metric that's reasonably standardized.

[mgent]

I think the short answer is that before Hollinger, nobody really focused on the possession as a standard unit.  A few teams preferred this and used his stats, but once they found success most teams hired their own advanced statistical analysts.

So, no I don't think he's considered the infallible answer.  Overrated?  Yes, but that's because what he does is created for the mainstream fan.  Us die-hards are able to see right through the majority of his crap.

[RyNye]

Hollinger's system is not without flaws, but the reason nothing else has gained traction is that there really isn't any better metric that's reasonably standardized.

Well, there is. Wins Produced. It is a far better metric in that it more accurately reflects performance (for example, if you perform retroactive analysis, every championship team over the past X years lead the league in Wins Produced, which isn't the case for PER. This automatically makes WP a more accurate measure), and is standardized. In fact, you could argue it is MORE standardized than PER, because it controls for minutes played, which PER does not.

The only reason better statistical measures haven't caught on is because most fans are unwilling to trust them. They prefer to use the "eye" test, which is incredibly inconsistent and unreliable. PER tends to match the "eye" test more than other measures, because it overvalues scoring and offensive output, which is subjectively more eye-grabbing and memorable. So even though there ARE better statistical measures, people don't trust them because they don't automatically reflect their pre-conceptions of who is good and who isn't.

There is nothing wrong with the stats. The problem is people don't LIKE them.

EDIT: Heck, you can see that on this forum. Almost anytime stats are brought up, they are dismissed by a dozen people saying "Well, stats aren't everything!!" I am not saying stats can explain everything. They can't. But stats, unlike our subjective opinions, are predictable, reliable, and consistent.

[JHTruth]

Every team in the league uses analytics to make decisions at this point. Analytics has completely taken over sports and business. Did you know stat genius Rockets GM Morey used to work for us? Have you ever heard of the Sloan Sports Analytics conference?

Check it out, Hollinger is just one example of Basketball stat analysis. I would say the godfather of basketball stat analytics is Dean Oliver.

[Chris]

Every team in the league uses analytics to make decisions at this point. Analytics has completely taken over sports and business. Did you know stat genius Rockets GM Morey used to work for us? Have you ever heard of the Sloan Sports Analytics conference?

Check it out, Hollinger is just one example of Basketball stat analysis. I would say the godfather of basketball stat analytics is Dean Oliver.

I would say Hollinger is the king of "pop" sports analytics.  He is trying to take his stats the the mainstream, and I think he gives up a lot of validity to try to appeal to a larger audience.  The real number crunchers deal with much more minute things, which allow them to look at more detailed and with higher validity. 

I would say that Hollinger is to Sports Analytics what Malcolm Gladwell is to the social sciences.  He veers pretty far off course from the people who really do it for a living, in order to make it more accessible. 

[JHTruth]

Every team in the league uses analytics to make decisions at this point. Analytics has completely taken over sports and business. Did you know stat genius Rockets GM Morey used to work for us? Have you ever heard of the Sloan Sports Analytics conference?

Check it out, Hollinger is just one example of Basketball stat analysis. I would say the godfather of basketball stat analytics is Dean Oliver.

I would say Hollinger is the king of "pop" sports analytics.  He is trying to take his stats the the mainstream, and I think he gives up a lot of validity to try to appeal to a larger audience.  The real number crunchers deal with much more minute things, which allow them to look at more detailed and with higher validity. 

I would say that Hollinger is to Sports Analytics what Malcolm Gladwell is to the social sciences.  He veers pretty far off course from the people who really do it for a living, in order to make it more accessible.

Yeah I would agree for ths most part. Perfect example is "PER" which is a somewhat useful stat but prob only used by the general public.

[ianboyextreme]

Glancing at the newest team rankings as well as reading an article posted recently on Celticsblog about Rondo's place in history has really made me realize this.
Why are the formulas this man has created become considered the infalliable answer to looking deeper into basketball? Who decided that John Hollinger's brain is the golden mind of stat analasys? Is it cause he works for ESPN? I think probably.

I'm sure you can point to dozens of alternatives of "ignored" statistical sources that have the same level of sophistication and are being unjustly ignored from the media. Oh wait...

Year after year Hollinger comes out and gives everyone the same ignorant downplaying of the Celtics and year after year he is made to look kind of stupid. Who knows of other stat dudes?

Except this is not true.

Well clearly there are a number of other people doing it as folks have shown in their responses. Also, in what way is that not true? year after year he predicts the Celtics will be way worse than they actually end up being. Simple as that.

[ianboyextreme]

I doubt this is an education issue but here you go;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APBRmetrics

"On a conspiracy tip, what if ESPN hired this guy to create stats that would glorify the players they want to be admired?"

The formula for PER is published; feel free to show what part of the formula is used to glorify players that ESPN wishes to promote.

Who considers his stats infallible?  Hollinger doesn't;

http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=2850240

"Bear in mind that PER is not the final, once-and-for-all evaluation of a player's accomplishments during the season. This is especially true for defensive specialists -- such as Quinton Ross and Jason Collins -- who don't get many blocks or steals.

What PER can do, however, is summarize a player's statistical accomplishments in a single number. That allows us to unify the disparate data on each player we try to track in our heads (e.g., Corey Maggette: free-throw machine, good rebounder, decent shooter, poor passer, etc.) so that we can move on to evaluating what might be missing from the stats."

Clearly stated the conspiracy comment was half in jest, the "half" part being a jest in and of itself.....