Hollingers crazy playoff odds are back

[rocketeer]

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...

i'm having trouble understanding this post, but if your previous posts in this thread are any indication i would disagree that your issue is with people who use per as if it's the only thing that matters. you appear to just not like hollinger for whatever reason:

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.

 

[huevonkiller]

it doesnt account for great man defenders either such as bowen, who doesnt get alot of blocks or steals.

It never claimed that it did.

 

[Celtic Fan]

fine, I hate both.

ppl who get goo stats but disappear when they need to deliver for their team have a good Per, but are not as good IMO, as ppl who have a lower PER but took the tough shots needed in order to try and win games. Reggie Miller doesn't have a great PER, but I'd love to have him on my team because he was cold blooded in crunch time and could carry a team in a 4th Quarter. David Robinson was an athletic freak who did amazing things for a 7 footer, yet played small and seldomly came through for his team in the playoffs, thus his zero finals appearances prior to Tim Duncan appearing.

I also find Hollinger's writings to be smug and I don't totally trust his formula as being totally accurate.

 

[huevonkiller]

fine, I hate both.

ppl who get goo stats but disappear when they need to deliver for their team have a good Per, but are not as good IMO, as ppl who have a lower PER but took the tough shots needed in order to try and win games. Reggie Miller doesn't have a great PER, but I'd love to have him on my team because he was cold blooded in crunch time and could carry a team in a 4th Quarter. David Robinson was an athletic freak who did amazing things for a 7 footer, yet played small and seldomly came through for his team in the playoffs, thus his zero finals appearances prior to Tim Duncan appearing.

I also find Hollinger's writings to be smug and I don't totally trust his formula as being totally accurate.

First you'd have to prove that David Robinson came up small in general, rather than in just one or two series.

A complete ignorance of statistics is equally as dangerous, I try to find a balance.

 

[DaRizzle]

I also find Hollinger's writings to be smug and I don't totally trust his formula as being totally accurate.

He never claimed it was...He has an equation, he describes his equation, he puts the numbers into the equation...out comes his ranks IN THOSE SPECIFIC CATEGORIES...that is all. Its people who think he is trying to be ranking players only according to PER (which he isnt, JUST PER) that give him such a hard time.

 

[Celtic Fan]

having a big game vs whomever in the 53rd game of the year.. not a big deal. Being one of the best 2-3 centers in the league with an all-star caliber SF, a solid back court and not making to the Finals at least once where the other centers did... proof enough if you watched David Robinson play in the early 90's... like me and 3 other ppl said

I also forgot to mention I find Hollinger's reliance on his own stat and ignoring the normal stats used throughout the history of the game to be extremely egotistical.

 

[Celtic Fan]

He never claimed it was...He has an equation, he describes his equation, he puts the numbers into the equation...out comes his ranks IN THOSE SPECIFIC CATEGORIES...that is all. Its people who think he is trying to be ranking players only according to PER (which he isnt, JUST PER) that give him such a hard time.

and yet I've read articles where he ranks players and voila, it's according to his PER formula.

Only place I really haven't seen it is his rookie rankings.

 

[DaRizzle]

I also forgot to mention I find Hollinger's reliance on his own stat and ignoring the normal stats used throughout the history of the game to be extremely egotistical.

Why? His stats give a different view than just a box score. Sabermetrics (thats what its named right?) seems to be doing big things in baseball and thats new.

 

[DaRizzle]

and yet I've read articles where he ranks players and voila, it's according to his PER formula.

Only place I really haven't seen it is his rookie rankings.

Uh maybe you misread his articles....He is ranking them by PER and PER alone...Its a rank by PER...not all encompassing

 

[huevonkiller]

having a big game vs whomever in the 53rd game of the year.. not a big deal. Being one of the best 2-3 centers in the league with an all-star caliber SF, a solid back court and not making to the Finals at least once where the other centers did... proof enough if you watched David Robinson play in the early 90's... like me and 3 other ppl said

I also forgot to mention I find Hollinger's reliance on his own stat and ignoring the normal stats used throughout the history of the game to be extremely egotistical.

Did you answer my question in any empirical manner? God forbid anyone try to bring in the opinion of other people outside your circle of 4.

You ignore a fair amount of stats yourself, I wouldn't be too harsh on John.

 

[rocketeer]

David Robinson was an athletic freak who did amazing things for a 7 footer, yet played small and seldomly came through for his team in the playoffs, thus his zero finals appearances prior to Tim Duncan appearing.

you do realize that david robinson only had one season in which his playoff numbers were actually significantly lower than his regular season numbers, right? and that season was one in which the spurs lost in the first round so there wasn't really much of a sample size. and david robinson's playoff failings were much more to do with there being a lot of really good teams in the west(hakeem's rockets, drexler's blazers, stockton/malone jazz, payton/kemp sonics, barkley/johnson suns) than his personal failings as a player.

I also find Hollinger's writings to be smug and I don't totally trust his formula as being totally accurate.

the whole point isn't that the results of his formula are perfect stats with which to measure players. there is no such thing. but it gives us a good indication of who is best at the things it does measure. if you can use it along with your opinions on the unmeasurable aspects of the game it is very useful.

you not trusting it because you don't think it's 100% accurate is dumb because it never claims to be.

 

[rocketeer]

I also forgot to mention I find Hollinger's reliance on his own stat and ignoring the normal stats used throughout the history of the game to be extremely egotistical.

what normal stats are you talking about that he ignores?

 

[Minstrel]

Sounds like what you want is the variance -

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

I'm well aware of what variance is. I was trying to give it a fun name (thus the exclamation point), not give the statistical term for it.

 

[Minstrel]

having a big game vs whomever in the 53rd game of the year.. not a big deal. Being one of the best 2-3 centers in the league with an all-star caliber SF, a solid back court and not making to the Finals at least once where the other centers did... proof enough if you watched David Robinson play in the early 90's... like me and 3 other ppl said

So, really, all you're saying is that you don't like / don't trust anything that disagrees with your opinions.

Specific statistical measures aren't the end-all and be-all, but I'd trust the opinion of someone who understood the stats, even if stats were all he/she used, over the opinion of someone who went entirely by what he/she saw and didn't look at the actual numbers at all.

The rational thing to do, of course, is both watch the games and have a solid understanding of the numbers. The numbers aren't made up...they were created by the players actually peforming on court.

 

[gambitnut]

One thing that was holding us back in things like PER and the playoffs odds was still having more points against than points for, due to the Laker game at the start of the season. I think that has now been erased.

 

[Celtic Fan]

you do realize that david robinson only had one season in which his playoff numbers were actually significantly lower than his regular season numbers, right? and that season was one in which the spurs lost in the first round so there wasn't really much of a sample size. and david robinson's playoff failings were much more to do with there being a lot of really good teams in the west(hakeem's rockets, drexler's blazers, stockton/malone jazz, payton/kemp sonics, barkley/johnson suns) than his personal failings as a player.

here the thing about the teams you listed.. they all went to the finals.. Robinson never carried his team to the finals. Sure they all lost save for the Rockets, but that's got more to do with facing Jordan and Pippen than those other great players not delivering.

Robinson was a very good player, but the fact of the matter is he had an earned reputation for coming up small in the crunch when he was needed the most. He's settle for jumpers rather than going in the paint and forcing the action, he'd not demand the ball and get a bucket when the team needed a big bucket. All the heart things you need out of your best player, David Robinson seldomly delivered. Hakeem, Malone, Barkely, Miller they all watned the ball and could be counted on to try and create something positive. Robinson was stead and reliable but never had that extra gear in big games.

Would anyone rank him as one of the 10 best players of all time???

 

[boatsandstars]

Reggie Miller = 0 Championships

David Robinson = More than 0 Championships.


If given the option to pick high performing players or lower performing players that mythically "come through in the clutch", I'll take the high performing players.

Clutch is more or less as myth. It's drama, it's a story, we want to believe that it matters, that Ryan Howard is a better MVP than a steafast talent like Pujols, that Reggie Miller is better for a team than David Robinson, but it's not true.

Players who perform at a high rate, usually continue to do so in "clutch" moments. But trying to bet on an outlier is a bad move because you'll be disappointed more than often.

 

[Masbee]

here the thing about the teams you listed.. they all went to the finals.. Robinson never carried his team to the finals. Sure they all lost save for the Rockets, but that's got more to do with facing Jordan and Pippen than those other great players not delivering.

Robinson was a very good player, but the fact of the matter is he had an earned reputation for coming up small in the crunch when he was needed the most. He's settle for jumpers rather than going in the paint and forcing the action, he'd not demand the ball and get a bucket when the team needed a big bucket. All the heart things you need out of your best player, David Robinson seldomly delivered. Hakeem, Malone, Barkely, Miller they all watned the ball and could be counted on to try and create something positive. Robinson was stead and reliable but never had that extra gear in big games.

Would anyone rank him as one of the 10 best players of all time???

So, then, what is your system for ranking young players in an attempt to predict which ones will be great in the playoffs?

As for Robinson, maybe he didn't "step up" in the playoffs as you claim is his reputation. Or, maybe he just had the weakest supporting cast of all those other stars, until Duncan came along.

Look at the roster of the teams he played with. Total garbage. Most of those other teams had two superstars. The Rockets had a complete and deep roster for their 1st title run. Spurs had neither. No single player does crap when they are on an island.

I propose you consider that Robinson didn't "step up" in the playoffs because opposing teams only really had to worry about stoping Robinson from scoring 30 and they would win. No other guy on the Spurs could consistently hurt them. When the opposition can concentrate all efforts on stopping you, you will look like crap.

 

[Masbee]

here the thing about the teams you listed.. they all went to the finals.. Robinson never carried his team to the finals. Sure they all lost save for the Rockets, but that's got more to do with facing Jordan and Pippen than those other great players not delivering.

Robinson was a very good player, but the fact of the matter is he had an earned reputation for coming up small in the crunch when he was needed the most. He's settle for jumpers rather than going in the paint and forcing the action, he'd not demand the ball and get a bucket when the team needed a big bucket. All the heart things you need out of your best player, David Robinson seldomly delivered. Hakeem, Malone, Barkely, Miller they all watned the ball and could be counted on to try and create something positive. Robinson was stead and reliable but never had that extra gear in big games.

Would anyone rank him as one of the 10 best players of all time???

Oh, another thing, even being able to see the future and know their career's in advance, there isn't a GM dead or alive that would pick Reggie Miller over David Robinson.

Reggie Miller wouldn't pick Reggie Miller over David Robinson.

So, in a way, I don't know what point you are trying to make? Seems pretty flimsy.

 

[Minstrel]

Would anyone rank him as one of the 10 best players of all time???

How is that relevant? There were more than 10 truly great players. I'd rank Robinson just outside the top ten and, really, there are only 9 players I'm certain I'd rank ahead of him: Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and Bill Russell. After those nine, Robinson is basically in a class with Karl Malone and Jerry West.

So sure, he could be a top ten player of all-time. He was one of the greatest defensive players ever to play the game, an excellent rebounder and one of the premier scorers of all-time. His only flaw, really, was that his game was more predicated on face-up offense, rather than back-to-the-basket offense. He was just as devastating, individually, with that style of offense, but it allowed the Spurs to play less inside-out team offense.

His "failures" in the playoffs were essentially due to the quality of his team. The rosters built around him hardly look like 60-game winning talent. They won 55-60 games per year because Robinson was arguably the best player in league, for a number of years, outside of Michael Jordan.

 

[bbwchingy0007]

You've got to remember that we're not through much of the season. As all statisticians know, the larger the set of dta, the more confident you can be of your findings. I would pretty much ignore (or look, but don't treat as anywhere near fact) these odds until probably 50 odd games have been played.

 

[rocketeer]

Would anyone rank him as one of the 10 best players of all time???

no, but i'd certainly rank him ahead of reggie miller.

 

[huevonkiller]

Hah this is so sweet. I love this discussion.

 

[gambitnut]

Anybody see the current playoff odds? The Blazers have a 96.3 chance of making the playoffs, second to only the Lakers, who don't miss the playoffs once in his simulations!

 

[maxiep]

Anybody see the current playoff odds? The Blazers have a 96.3 chance of making the playoffs, second to only the Lakers, who don't miss the playoffs once in his simulations!

I have to think it has more to do with our strength of schedule than our record.