Hollingers crazy playoff odds are back

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
0%...For the Clips...really...right...

but I guess its all done with math and no opinion...thats still BS
 
Hollinger is the worst and is desperate attempt to be relavent with his forumla's is downright pathetic. I have zero respect for this guys thoughts/opinions and stats.
 
Celtic Fan said:
Hollinger is the worst
Click to expand...

I ALWAYS hear stuff like this about Hollinger and any other national sports reporter. Is there ANYONE who ISNT bashed on forums like these? Im not saying you are right or wrong on your opinion...Im yet to see a reporter get anyone get any kind of consistent praise like Hollinger gets consistent hate
 
Hey I love Peter King and Bill Simmons, but as for a solid writer you can count on for serious predictions/insight.. nahh most are blowhards who are guessing as much as the next guy and have biases as well IMO.
 
Celtic Fan said:
Hey I love Peter King and Bill Simmons, but as for a solid writer you can count on for serious predictions/insight.. nahh most are blowhards who are guessing as much as the next guy and have biases as well IMO.
Click to expand...

Is that how they got the job? :drumroll:
 
I think it's kinda cool. Assuming teams play as they have, and the rest of the league plays as it has so far, how would the season end?

Of course a weird game or two in the first ten can make a huge difference, but it's an interesting thing to look at even with such a small sample size.

Ed O.
 
Celtic Fan said:
Hey I love Peter King and Bill Simmons, but as for a solid writer you can count on for serious predictions/insight.. nahh most are blowhards who are guessing as much as the next guy and have biases as well IMO.
Click to expand...

What biases are there in PER and Hollinger's other equations?

Ed O.
 
sigh...my bold prediction of the Clips make the playoffs and PHX not isnt looking too good according to his equations...

PHX chance: 98.9%
LAC chance 0%
:dunno:
 
hey..if we get the 6th seed...id take that in a heartbeat AND getting to play the hornets in round 1? SIGN ME UP!

like i said for weeks.....2 teams out of these 4 get in the playoffs.

warriors, spurs, blazers, mavs

you pick which 2. its really anyones spot
 
DaRizzle said:
PHX chance: 98.9%
LAC chance 0%
:dunno:
Click to expand...

Yep. The Clippers are 1-9 and they haven't played the toughest schedule in the universe. If they continue to play at that level it makes sense they have something approaching a 0% chance of making the playoffs.

Ed O.
 
Ed O said:
What biases are there in PER and Hollinger's other equations?

Ed O.
Click to expand...

they don't take into account intangibile, such as hustle, leadership, setting picks, assiting on double teams, making the extra pass.. you know things you learn by watching players and teams :cheers:
 
Celtic Fan said:
they don't take into account intangibile, such as hustle, leadership, setting picks, assiting on double teams, making the extra pass.. you know things you learn by watching players and teams :cheers:
Click to expand...

How is that biased?

It might make them INACCURATE, but I don't see a bias against certain teams, let alone an intentional one.

Ed O.
 
Celtic Fan said:
they don't take into account intangibile, such as hustle, leadership, setting picks, assiting on double teams, making the extra pass.. you know things you learn by watching players and teams :cheers:
Click to expand...

Well there are no way you can put those things into an equation form.

Hollinger isnt the end all be all, but it gives a lot of good information IMO
 
Celtic Fan said:
they don't take into account intangibile, such as hustle, leadership, setting picks, assiting on double teams, making the extra pass.. you know things you learn by watching players and teams :cheers:
Click to expand...
Yup.

Pretty much every little thing that happens on a baseball field is trapped into some kind of a stat. That's why sabermetrics are becoming huge there fast.

But there's lots of activity on the basketball court that is not captured anywhere. There's no statistic that showed how James Jones adjusted the Blazers' defensive spacing. There's no stat that shows the players who sat there pump-faking Oden (unsuccessfully) during the game. Yes, there's a stat for points in the paint, but that's not representative in Oden's personal stats.

PER is a good stat for some basic offensive info about players. But it's not a great way to judge two players who provide different services to a team on the court.
 
dpc said:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds

Has the blazers at 88 percent chance

Really what is the point of this? Can anyone explain to me one reason why anyone should click and read this?
Click to expand...
it's simple. he takes how the teams have performed thus far this season(using his power rankings forumla) and using those rankings simulates the remainder of the season 5000 times to get the projected outcomes.

it definitely isn't perfect as it doesn't take into account injuries and assumes teams are going to play at the same level they have played at thus far, but as long as you realize the flaws in the system it's an interesting thing to look at.
 
Celtic Fan said:
they don't take into account intangibile, such as hustle, leadership, setting picks, assiting on double teams, making the extra pass.. you know things you learn by watching players and teams :cheers:
Click to expand...
those don't make them biased towards specific players or teams.

obviously any rating system is going to be flawed. just using stats doesn't tell the whole story and it's impossible to involve personal opinion without some biases.

but as long as you know what his stats represent, they are very useful.
 
timmay said:
But there's lots of activity on the basketball court that is not captured anywhere. There's no statistic that showed how James Jones adjusted the Blazers' defensive spacing. There's no stat that shows the players who sat there pump-faking Oden (unsuccessfully) during the game. Yes, there's a stat for points in the paint, but that's not representative in Oden's personal stats.
Click to expand...

While I agree that baseball is better suited for statistical analysis (since, despite being technically a team sport, baseball is really a series of one-on-one competitions), I think there are stats that make an effort at capture such things, like Adjusted +/-, which gives you an idea of which players are having a positive impact or negative impact on the court (for any reason...if their leadership, floor spacing, whatever, is having an impact, it should show up on the scoreboard when they're on the floor).

Straight +/- is extremely flawed, since backups play against worse players and with worse teammates, but Adjusted +/- stats attempt to adjust for that.

PER is useful for exactly what it claims to be for: a measure of individual overall production. It doesn't claim to account for intangibles or for general defense. It's purely a production stat. You have to account, yourself, for defense or intangibles (if you think intangibles are a key aspect).
 
Hey DaRizzle, were you the one that was sure Phoenix wouldn't make the playoffs and the Clippers would?
 
Minstrel said:
PER is useful for exactly what it claims to be for: a measure of individual overall production. It doesn't claim to account for intangibles or for general defense. It's purely a production stat. You have to account, yourself, for defense or intangibles (if you think intangibles are a key aspect).
Click to expand...

I strongly agree with you here. PER definitely is useful for production comparisons. But it's not a all-encompassing stat.

That's exactly why I don't like seeing PER used to rank rookies. It's inherently biased toward production, and leaves out anything that's not captured.

Of course, you could argue that ROY awards are often voted to the person with the highest production. But that's a different thread... :)
 
The one stat I would like to see is some sort of consistency rating. The rating would look at deviations from averages amongst all major statistical categories and provide a numerical way to to compare these player deviations. So, for example, player X and player Y both average 10ppg and 5rpg, but player X almost always scores and rebounds around those same numbers, whereas player Y has games with 2points and 1 rebound, and other games with 30points and such.

This seems like a stat that one could easily write a formula for that would accurately show how consistent a player is. Perhaps make the stat time dependent.
 
Celtic Fan said:
they don't take into account intangibile, such as hustle, leadership, setting picks, assiting on double teams, making the extra pass.. you know things you learn by watching players and teams :cheers:
Click to expand...

yeah, but that is taken into account equally across all teams.

I love Hollinger, because he doesnt use opinions and bias to formulate projections. His stuff isnt the end all be all, but it is another stat to look at.
 
Last edited:
GOD said:
The one stat I would like to see is some sort of consistency rating. The rating would look at deviations from averages amongst all major statistical categories and provide a numerical way to to compare these player deviations. So, for example, player X and player Y both average 10ppg and 5rpg, but player X almost always scores and rebounds around those same numbers, whereas player Y has games with 2points and 1 rebound, and other games with 30points and such.

This seems like a stat that one could easily write a formula for that would accurately show how consistent a player is. Perhaps make the stat time dependent.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that would be a cool stat. Volatility rating!
 
Celtic Fan said:
they don't take into account intangibile, such as hustle, leadership, setting picks, assiting on double teams, making the extra pass.. you know things you learn by watching players and teams :cheers:
Click to expand...

it doesnt account for great man defenders either such as bowen, who doesnt get alot of blocks or steals.
 
Minstrel said:
While I agree that baseball is better suited for statistical analysis (since, despite being technically a team sport, baseball is really a series of one-on-one competitions), I think there are stats that make an effort at capture such things, like Adjusted +/-, which gives you an idea of which players are having a positive impact or negative impact on the court (for any reason...if their leadership, floor spacing, whatever, is having an impact, it should show up on the scoreboard when they're on the floor).

Straight +/- is extremely flawed, since backups play against worse players and with worse teammates, but Adjusted +/- stats attempt to adjust for that.

PER is useful for exactly what it claims to be for: a measure of individual overall production. It doesn't claim to account for intangibles or for general defense. It's purely a production stat. You have to account, yourself, for defense or intangibles (if you think intangibles are a key aspect).
Click to expand...

my issue with ppl who use it as a be all and end all and refuse to listen to what oh way 4 ppl tell them about a player because his PER is outrageously high...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top