Hollinger Forecast: Blazers

[Reep]

Hollinger

Between the low rebounds and the infrequent steals, the Blazers were the league's second easiest team to get shots against, surrendering 0.99 shots per opponent possession.

But with all the long arms on the Blazer roster, opponents tended to miss the shots they took. Portland ranked eighth in opponent shooting percentage and ninth in opponent true shooting percentage, negating some of the advantage of all those shot attempts and placing them a respectable 17th in defensive efficiency overall.

Throw in a lack of 3-point shooting to complement Oden . . . .

Blake #21 41%
Outlaw (unranked) 40%
Webster #44 39%

Blazers: #7 in 3pt% in the league

What more do you want?

Prediction: 42-40, 2nd in Northwest Division, 8th in Western Conference

 

[Blazer4life]

While Hollinger has some good numbers in there and he at least has logic as to why he thinks we will struggle at times I disagree with his overall assesment. Especially calling Lamarcus a softy. All we have heard this offseason is that Aldridge is bigger and stronger and does not want to be known as a perimeter shooter and he reminded the media of that at media day. i hope Aldridge reads stuff like this and uses it to motivate himself even more then he already is.

 

[mook]

Wow. Call me a homer, but I think we're a lot better team this year than just two more wins.

Here's the line that surprised me most:

If that's the case, then Portland might not be quite as good as people expect. The thing people forget about last year is everything went right for the Blazers -- most of their players played well above their career norms and nobody got hurt after Oden went out.

I'm not sure what he means by players playing above their career norms. Our two best players, Aldridge and Roy, were only in their second years. What exactly is the "career norm" for second year players?

Outlaw played above his career norm, but there's a pretty steady trendline of growth over the past three seasons. He played about as well as you'd expect him to, given that trend. Last year wasn't a fluke for Outlaw--it represented what he really is.

Webster put up slightly better stats last year, but again, it's not like they looked like massive aberrations. I think you can pretty confidently pencil him in for at least as good stats this year.

Przybilla did about as well as he always does when healthy. That he stayed healthy was the big news there, and maybe that's not something we can count on.

Overall, I don't see a lot of players who really played above themselves. They just progressed like talented young players are supposed to.

One last thought--I'm surprised Hollinger made so little mention of what Fernandez brings to the table. He looked like one of the best players on either team against NBA superstars in the Olympic championship game. Surely his addition alone is worth more than two wins for this team.

 

[Ed O]

Blazers: #7 in 3pt% in the league

What more do you want?

Yeah... I find that argument to be very odd.

I thought maybe he meant that the team didn't shoot many... but Portland finished 15th in three pointers made and 18th in three pointers attempted. Even ignoring their low pace, that's a fair amount of three point shooting.

I think he's right that a LOT of things went right for Portland last year (especially during the win streak) and that makes it possible that Portland won't improve as much as many are expecting. Hopefully the team proves him wrong!

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

Yeah... I find that argument to be very odd.

I thought maybe he meant that the team didn't shoot many... but Portland finished 15th in three pointers made and 18th in three pointers attempted. Even ignoring their low pace, that's a fair amount of three point shooting.

I think he's right that a LOT of things went right for Portland last year (especially during the win streak) and that makes it possible that Portland won't improve as much as many are expecting. Hopefully the team proves him wrong!

Ed O.

Yeah, like losing the #1 pick in the entire draft! I've not thought much of Hollinger in the past, and this preview does nothing to elevate my opinion of him.

 

[Ed O]

Yeah, like losing the #1 pick in the entire draft! I've not thought much of Hollinger in the past, and this preview does nothing to elevate my opinion of him.

Did you read his column? He was talking about after Oden went down.

Your point is irrelevant.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

Did you read his column? He was talking about after Oden went down.

Your point is irrelevant.

Ed O.

Hollinger feels that adding Oden, Fernandez, and Bayless will yield a 1 game improvement over last season.

If his point was that the returning players alone constructed the roster, I might agree with him. But to overlook the potential rookie, or rookies of the year, being added to the roster seems dumb to me and hardly seems irrelevant.


Plus, as mook pointed out, it's pretty much a given that young players are going to have "career years" when they have two or three years in the league, or they are just starting to get consistent minutes.

 

[Reep]

I think Hollinger was conservative on several things.

Oden: in his chat, he states that he considered Oden as a defensive improvement, but not much else.
3 pt shooting: again, hit Portland because James Jones is gone?
Improvement: said everyone was up last year, but they couldn't repeat that. With the youth on this team, I hope they all keep improving. I think he forgot to consider where these guys are on their learning curve.

Overall, he downplayed almost everything--probably too much. Hopefully a few things go better than his prediction and we can get up to the high 40s.

 

[PapaG]

I think Hollinger was conservative on several things.

Oden: in his chat, he states that he considered Oden as a defensive improvement, but not much else.
3 pt shooting: again, hit Portland because James Jones is gone?
Improvement: said everyone was up last year, but they couldn't repeat that. With the youth on this team, I hope they all keep improving. I think he forgot to consider where these guys are on their learning curve.

Overall, he downplayed almost everything--probably too much. Hopefully a few things go better than his prediction and we can get up to the high 40s.

The point that renders Hollinger's article irrelevant, at least for me, is the fact that this team was the 3rd youngest in league history last year. And while it is true that they add Oden and Bayless, Roy and LMA are now confident in their NBA abilities, Blake is hardly a "back-up" when it is clear that Brandon can handle the ball in the clutch, and the bench should be much, much improved offensively with Bayless and Fernandez able to help score. Last year, if Outlaw wasn't having a good game, the bench was an absolute joke except for the rare nights when Jack's offensive pluses outweighed his turnovers.

I say the second unit adds 3 wins alone, which puts the team at 44-38, and that doesn't even factor in Oden's impact.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

I say the second unit adds 3 wins alone, which puts the team at 44-38, and that doesn't even factor in Oden's impact.

I agree!

47-35 is my prediction.

 

[maxiep]

A few things stand out to my about Hollinger's comments.

First, if we go 42-40, there's no way we're the 8th seed.

Second, the average win improvement after getting the #1 pick is 11 wins. Taking into account that most teams that get the #1 pick aren't 41-41, let's say that bonus gets cut in half.

Third, we replaced Jack and Miles with Bayless and Fernandez. Sure, Jarrett knew the league, but Bayless appears to be a better version of Jack.

And it's not like Rudy is your typical rookie. He just played, and played well, against the best this league has to offer. Furthermore, one of our problems with our second unit was that our SG was the size of a PG. Rudy offers a length that Jack doesn't.

Fourth, unless you've sat on the inactive squad your first year, statistics show that you continue to improve until your fourth year, where you level off. All of our best players have less than four years of experience, so how are they not supposed to improve?

Fifth, the areas where we needed help, we got it. Our interior defense stunk. We were wimpy on the boards. We had no game in the paint. Now we have Greg Oden.

We didn't have length in our second unit at the two. We had one offensive threat on our second unit (Travis). Rudy, say hi to the rst of the league.

Our second string PG couldn't drive and finish nor could he shoot from the outside. Our second string PG couldn't defend. Welcome to the NBA, Jarryd.

Even with our good luck last year, I still peg our record as 7-11 wins better than last year.

 

[Blazer4life]

A few things stand out to my about Hollinger's comments.

First, if we go 42-40, there's no way we're the 8th seed.

Second, the average win improvement after getting the #1 pick is 11 wins. Taking into account that most teams that get the #1 pick aren't 41-41, let's say that bonus gets cut in half.

Third, we replaced Jack and Miles with Bayless and Fernandez. Sure, Jarrett knew the league, but Bayless appears to be a better version of Jack.

And it's not like Rudy is your typical rookie. He just played, and played well, against the best this league has to offer. Furthermore, one of our problems with our second unit was that our SG was the size of a PG. Rudy offers a length that Jack doesn't.

Fourth, unless you've sat on the inactive squad your first year, statistics show that you continue to improve until your fourth year, where you level off. All of our best players have less than four years of experience, so how are they not supposed to improve?

Fifth, the areas where we needed help, we got it. Our interior defense stunk. We were wimpy on the boards. We had no game in the paint. Now we have Greg Oden.

We didn't have length in our second unit at the two. We had one offensive threat on our second unit (Travis). Rudy, say hi to the rst of the league.

Our second string PG couldn't drive and finish nor could he shoot from the outside. Our second string PG couldn't defend. Welcome to the NBA, Jarryd.

Even with our good luck last year, I still peg our record as 7-11 wins better than last year.

On top of that, tell me one team that has a better back up center then we have in the league. Teams will not be able to push us around in the paint anymore when we come at them with Oden 1st, then Pryzbilla off the bench. Pryzbilla was one of the better defending/rebounding centers last year as a starter. Now he wont be counted on as much for scoring and will be able to focus all his efforts on defense. Our 2nd unit is rediculously deep, but will probably need a bit of time to develop chemistry.

 

[PapaG]

Hollinger wrote: Roy is great, obviously, but Blake is a nice backup being pressed into service as a starter because the team lacks other options.

I'm not sure what Hollinger expects out of the PG position. Blake played almost 30 mpg game and still managed to be #7 in the entire NBA in Assist/TO ratio. He shoots 77% from the line and over 40% on 3pt FG. Plus, he is an underrated defender and has been assigned to Kobe Bryant in the past solely because he could actually keep Kobe in front of him. Playing now with what appear to be 3 possible All-Star-type players, Blake may be exactly the sort of stabilizing influence that the starting unit needs.

 

[rocketeer]

you know it's a good thing when the only thing he can come up with as a weakness is "youth".

questioning the lack of three point shooting is odd to me. blake, webster, and outlaw all shot 3s very well last year and then you add bayless who was a 40% 3 point shooter in college and rudy who was a 40% 3 point shooter in europe. seems like 3 point shooting will be fine.

So much of the expectation for this year depends on what one plugs in for Oden. If he has a monstrous, David Robinson-type rookie year, then the Blazers are going to be phenomenally good; since I've heard scouts make that comparison I'm not going to dismiss the possibility.

and i'll never understand this. hollinger has heard scouts make a comparison to robinson, so he won't dismiss that? really? hollinger can't think for himself? i'd hope an espn "expert" (even one that focuses on stats) would actually watch some guys play and be able to make their own judgements.

 

[Reep]

I'm not sure what Hollinger expects out of the PG position. Blake played almost 30 mpg game and still managed to be #7 in the entire NBA in Assist/TO ratio. He shoots 77% from the line and over 40% on 3pt FG. Plus, he is an underrated defender and has been assigned to Kobe Bryant in the past solely because he could actually keep Kobe in front of him. Playing now with what appear to be 3 possible All-Star-type players, Blake may be exactly the sort of stabilizing influence that the starting unit needs.

My only real complaint about Blake is he isn't aggressive enough with the ball and his shot. He gives up after penitrating too often and hesitates on the three if he isn't wide open. I hope his added strength and conditioning will help with this. I think he has the tools to be even more solid than he has been.

 

[Reep]

Hollinger says he won't dismiss the Robinson comparisons, but yet where does he give it any credit at all?

Now, David was older than Oden, and did come in at 24 pts, 12 reb and 4 blocks, with a much more ready offensive game. I would be happy with 10 pts, 12 reb and 4 blocks from Oden.

 

[STOMP]

Throw in a lack of 3-point shooting to complement Oden . . . .

as others have pointed out, with Blake, Outlaw, Webster, Rudy, Roy, and Bayless, JH seems off base with this criticism. But in addition, Frye and Aldridge spread the court with solid outside shooting as well.

Maybe he was drunk when he wrote this...

STOMP

 

[Ed O]

Hollinger feels that adding Oden, Fernandez, and Bayless will yield a 1 game improvement over last season.

I know. I read the article.

Plus, as mook pointed out, it's pretty much a given that young players are going to have "career years" when they have two or three years in the league, or they are just starting to get consistent minutes.

Really?

Ask the Bulls if this is the case.

Ask the Clippers of a few years ago.

I TOTALLY disagree that there's an inevitable upward trend when players get more experienced.

Last year the Blazers played extremely well during their winning streak and less than mediocre the rest of the time. A key to that win streak was the career-best streak that Jones was on... it was sort of a perfect storm.

I don't think anyone here expects that kind of fluke of a winning streak, and without something similar Portland is not guaranteed to finish even at .500, let alone markedly over it.

I think that Hollinger is being a bit conservative in his estimate and projections, but I tend to agree with him that last year involved a lot of luck for Portland to finish where they did.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

I know. I read the article.



Really?

Ask the Bulls if this is the case.

Ask the Clippers of a few years ago.

I TOTALLY disagree that there's an inevitable upward trend when players get more experienced.

Last year the Blazers played extremely well during their winning streak and less than mediocre the rest of the time. A key to that win streak was the career-best streak that Jones was on... it was sort of a perfect storm.

I don't think anyone here expects that kind of fluke of a winning streak, and without something similar Portland is not guaranteed to finish even at .500, let alone markedly over it.

I think that Hollinger is being a bit conservative in his estimate and projections, but I tend to agree with him that last year involved a lot of luck for Portland to finish where they did.

Ed O.

I disagree with your take, but I certainly wouldn't label it 'irrelevant'.

Have a nice day.

 

[Reep]

I think that Hollinger is being a bit conservative in his estimate and projections, but I tend to agree with him that last year involved a lot of luck for Portland to finish where they did.

Ed O.

41 wins -4 (luck) +7(oden) +3(bench scoring) = 47 wins.

See how easy that is.

 

[PapaG]

FWIW, luck is an "intangible", and for Hollinger to use it as any justification on a prediction devalues his own statistical work.

I'm actually a bit surprised a guy so committed to statistics would make such an admission.

 

[e_blazer]

I know. I read the article.

I don't think anyone here expects that kind of fluke of a winning streak, and without something similar Portland is not guaranteed to finish even at .500, let alone markedly over it.

Ed O.

I don't think it's reasonable to write off the wins during the streak as a "fluke". Sure, the team was healthy, played well during that stretch, and got a few breaks that resulted in wins that might otherwise have been losses, but that happens to every team in the NBA at some points in the season. It's also true that the schedule was favorable during that period, but that averages out over the year. Look at it this way, if those streak wins had been broken up into three smaller stretches, would anyone call it luck that the Blazers had won them? If anything, I think it's more reasonable to chalk up some of the losses in the second half of the season to bad luck due to injuries and a few unfortunate breaks.

The Blazers were a good team last year. They lost nothing of consequence in the offseason and they're adding Oden, Fernandez and Bayless. That should translate into more than two additional wins over last year.

 

[Ed O]

I disagree with your take, but I certainly wouldn't label it 'irrelevant'.

Have a nice day.

If it's irrelevant, please label it that. I certainly won't take offense.

Your point was irrelevant because your point was speicifically addressed by Hollinger and then you used it as a reason that Hollinger (and my agreeing point) was incorrect.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

FWIW, luck is an "intangible", and for Hollinger to use it as any justification on a prediction devalues his own statistical work.

I'm actually a bit surprised a guy so committed to statistics would make such an admission.

Luck influences expected wins and losses. Nobody in their right mind thinks that intangibles don't exist, and few sane fans of statistics believe that any statistical analysis covers all that can happen on the basketball court and/or explains why wins and losses occur like they do.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

I don't think it's reasonable to write off the wins during the streak as a "fluke". Sure, the team was healthy, played well during that stretch, and got a few breaks that resulted in wins that might otherwise have been losses, but that happens to every team in the NBA at some points in the season. It's also true that the schedule was favorable during that period, but that averages out over the year. Look at it this way, if those streak wins had been broken up into three smaller stretches, would anyone call it luck that the Blazers had won them? If anything, I think it's more reasonable to chalk up some of the losses in the second half of the season to bad luck due to injuries and a few unfortunate breaks.

The Blazers were a good team last year. They lost nothing of consequence in the offseason and they're adding Oden, Fernandez and Bayless. That should translate into more than two additional wins over last year.

Jones was pretty damn good in the games that we won. He's gone.

Will someone be better than Jones over the long haul? I have NO DOUBT that we have three or four guys who are superior prospects and have a chance to be much better than Jones has been in his career... but he had some games where he was a very, very good player and I don't know if we'll stumble into that kind of lucky streak again this season.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

If it's irrelevant, please label it that. I certainly won't take offense.

Your point was irrelevant because your point was speicifically addressed by Hollinger and then you used it as a reason that Hollinger (and my agreeing point) was incorrect.

Ed O.

I don't feel it was addressed by Hollinger other than in a cursory manner, and him using "luck" as a part of his statistical analysis pretty much supports my view. He devalued his own job by using luck as any sort of parameter. Sloppy stuff...

 

[Ed O]

41 wins -4 (luck) +7(oden) +3(bench scoring) = 47 wins.

See how easy that is.

Hehe.

That's 5 more wins than Hollinger is being crucified for predicting... does anyone really think that he expects his predictions/projections to have THAT much accuracy?

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

I don't feel it was addressed by Hollinger other than in a cursory manner, and him using "luck" as a part of his statistical analysis pretty much supports my view. He devalued his own job by using luck as any sort of parameter. Sloppy stuff...

Do you have any concept of what "expected wins" means? Here's an article about it and how it relates to the NBA.

Have you studied statistics or quantitative analysis in baseball or basketball at any level?

Luck is INHERENT in sports and in statistical analysis. Calling it "sloppy" is showing your ignorance of how things like that are done.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

Do you have any concept of what "expected wins" means?

Have you studied statistics or quantitative analysis in baseball or basketball at any level?

Luck is INHERENT in sports and in statistical analysis. Calling it "sloppy" is showing your ignorance of how things like that are done.

Ed O.

Luck is inherent and an unknown. Hollinger can't quantify luck, so trying to make a supporting argument out of luck is ridiculous. Luck is an unknown; Hollinger may think the Blazers were "lucky" to win 41 games last year; I think they were unlucky to only win 41 games considering the season as a whole and the entire injury problem, Oden included.

If it makes you feel better to call me "ignorant", so be it, but show me a model that effectively predicts luck, and then show me the model that makes luck an absolute with a universal definition. It's an easy way out for Hollinger to throw "luck" into the mix; he does not dive deep enough into it for me to do anything other than mock him for his ridiculous inclusion of it.

Actually, the more I read the article, the dumber it seems on the opinion side. Of course LMA had a career year; he hadn't started an entire season prior to it. The statistics are top-notch, however. Too bad Hollinger didn't stick to them and instead soiled his entire column.

 

[PapaG]

Hehe.

That's 5 more wins than Hollinger is being crucified for predicting... does anyone really think that he expects his predictions/projections to have THAT much accuracy?

Ed O.

I'm not crucifying him. Even of the drama; I disagree with him and am disappointed he would use luck as a parameter.