ESPN’s Knee-Jerk NBA ‘Analyst,’ John Hollinger
ESPN, NBA February 4th. 2008, 2:04pm
Here’s what ESPN’s John Hollinger wrote in the hours after the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol from the Grizzlies: “Can the Lakers win the title with this team? Absolutely. That doesn’t mean they will, mind you, but L.A. has the best team on paper once Bynum comes back … Given how even things have been in the West so far, you’d have to look at L.A. as the favorite.” Really, John?
We do not know John Hollinger, and we wouldn’t recognize him if he delivered a pizza to our apartment. He seems to be trying to carve out a niche at the four-letter as the Tom Verducci of the NBA - a numbers guy. Will someone tell the man that a pitcher vs. a batter is largely 1 on 1 and the NBA is a team sport? We decided to “analyze” three Hollinger claims - that Laker buffoonery above, Peja-to-the-Hornets and Tj Ford for Charlie V. What we found may surprise you!
Two years ago, Hollinger whiffed badly when analyzing two moves: the Hornets signing Peja, and the Raptors trading Charlie Villanueva to Milwaukee for TJ Ford. At the time, we questioned his logic, and based on what has transpired this season, you could call his first two predictions a hopeless 0-for-2. And that’s the way we feel about his bold, ‘best on paper/favorites’ statements about the Lakers.
Hollinger on the acquisitions of Chandler and Peja: “Rather than targeting Stojakovic, Jackson and Chandler, they should be focused on adding less expensive players with greater upside — Jackie Butler instead of Chandler, Eddie House instead of Jackson. And, if they were really that desperate for a shooter, Vladimir Radmanovic instead of Stojakovic. Instead, because they weren’t honest with themselves, the Hornets may have inadvertently made themselves the new 76ers — a capped-out 38-win team that has itself painted into a corner with untradable contracts.” No, we did not put Jackie Butler’s name in there. Hollinger did. Is the criminally lazy Butler even in the NBA? What about the NBDL?
Last year, the Hornets were decimated by injuries (Peja played just 13 games) and still only narrowly missed the playoffs, a sign that the team was on the cusp of something. With the team healthy this season, Byron Scott has New Orleans jockeying a for the top seed in the West. Peja is 7th in the NBA in three-point shooting, and he’s shooting 92 percent from the foul line. Obviously Peja is not the only reason the Hornets are one of the best teams in the league - David West has continued to surprise, Chris Paul is an MVP candidate, and seven years after being the No. 2 pick in the draft, Tyson Chandler is emerging as a stud inside. Perhaps the Hornets will tank in the second half and rethink their future this summer. We kind of doubt it.
Hollinger’s take on a Toronto-Milwaukee deal was equally befuddling: “But trading Villanueva for Ford? Sorry folks, I have to call ‘em like I see ‘em, and I see this one as being just astoundingly stupid. Even if they’d decided to get rid of Villanueva — a defensible position, considering the Raptors’ surplus of big forwards — they had to be able to get much more than this in return. And if this was really all the market would bear, they should have waited ’til the trade deadline. But most of all, they shouldn’t have done this deal. Villanueva is a rising star. Ford is a backup-quality point guard who will cost more and has much greater odds of getting hurt.”
We have always been high on Villanueva. Liked him at Connecticut, and liked him in Toronto. Here’s what he’s done in Milwaukee - injured last year, and career lows in points, rebounding, and shooting this season. Hardly a “rising star.” To be fair, he has been displaced by Yi Jianlian, whose “people” refused to have him sign with the Bucks unless he was going to be a starter. At any rate, no playoffs for the Bucks last year or this season. The Raptors were the fourth seed in the 2007 NBA playoffs and seem to be on track (currently fifth) for another spot this season. When healthy last year, Ford posted career highs in points, assists and field goal percentage; this season, before a gruesome injury, his scoring and shooting (48 percent!) were up, and his turnovers were down. Certainly better than “backup quality.”
Something Hollinger didn’t take into account - in getting rid of Ford, the Bucks had to give big bucks to Mo Williams, a scoring point guard. He is now making more money than Ford, and 10 times out of 10, we’d rather have Ford running our team than Williams.
Lastly, the hyperbole regarding the Lakers is downright absurd. Best team on paper? Subjective as hell, but we still lean toward Phoenix (experience), San Antonio (big three and best role players in the NBA) and Denver (talent). Favorites? A team that has not won a playoff series since 2004 suddenly are the favorites? Of the last five NBA titles, four of winners finished in the top five in scoring defense (Miami was 13th). Currently, the Lakers are 23rd. Pau Gasol will not make this a significantly better defensive team. (We have no problem pointing out that the Suns, a terrible defensive team, were our NBA champs pick, with part of the reason being that this is an even-numbered year, and San Antonio only wins it all in odd years.) We’d like to point out that right now, San Antonio is 3rd in scoring defense, and New Orleans is 4th.
63 Responses to “ESPN’s Knee-Jerk NBA ‘Analyst,’ John Hollinger”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

February 4th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Does John Hollinger get a post when the Lakers win the NBA Championship?
February 4th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Verducci is a numbers guy? Kinda sorta not really. Hollinger is more like the Rob Neyer of the NBA.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
good read…can’t really add anything.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
This was random.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I think TBL has some serious hate for this cat. I haven’t seen any of the TBLs write this much ever.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
On paper, their lineup is quite formidable. Fisher, Bryant, Odom, Gasol, Bynum. I just don’t know how Gasol fits in with this group.
Couldn’t Memphis have gotten a little bit more in return? I understand the expiring contracts, but still.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Denver?…Ricockulous, I say!
February 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
OK, TBL, no irony here …
You call out Hollinger for being a “numbers guy,” and then close out your column by quashing San Antonio’s hopes for a title because “San Antonio only wins it all in odd years.”
Pretty weak.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
3 things about the post…
1—I agree with your general premise. But….
2—10 times out of 10, you take TJ Ford over Mo Williams? Not a chance in hell, Williams is FAR superior; and
3—Tom Verducci isn’t remotely a “numbers” guy, so that comparison made no sense.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
My PER is higher than your PER, so, like, take that.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Hollinger is the best NBA writer at the dot-com, bar none. I’ve said this here before, but the man was ripped all year for having the Spurs ahead of the Mavs who were on a record-setting pace. He never wavered, and the Spurs rolled to an easy title.
In defense of the TJ Ford trade, how wrong was he? I mean TJ Ford is, in fact, a backup PG. Calderon is an absolute stud, and now they’re stuck paying starter money to an injury prone (a big part of Hollinger’s argument), undersized PG. Ford can’t carry Calderon’s jock. He half-whiffed on Villanueva, but still 10 times out of 10, I’d rather gamble on a 6′10″ dude with 3 point range than a 5′11″ PG coming off a major, grotesque injury.
In re: Peja, the dude is shooting 3s, but he’s really not that good otherwise and abasolutely not worth the insane contract he got. He definitely undervalued Tyson, and he probably wasn’t expecting Chris Paul to be the best point guard in the world this early. So sue him.
Finally, assuming Bynum is healthy (a big part of his argument), how can you not say their Finals favorites? I’m the biggest critic of Kobe of any of the commenters here, but put him beside Bynum, Gasol, Odom, and that very nice bench, and even Kobe (ha!) can win.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Not sure I understand the criticism, either. But let’s keep this in mind come playoff time. The Lakers were going to be a tough matchup without Pau Gasol. With him they seem like a genuine championship contender. Seems like a decent enough position to take.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
KD - Glad you’re still reading, you comment once every six months.
Hollinger uses #’s to decide who the better player is/who wins a trade/who will win a title, etc.
The Spurs #’s thing was a joke, obviously. We try not to make a habit of basing title picks on even/odd # years.
And no hate at all for Hollinger, i just dislike making the NBA a numbers game when so many of the #s are based on the team effort.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Hollinger rarely knows what he’s talking about, but I’m sure he’s lucked out on a few things.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Nick - Did you read any of the post, or just skim it? All the answers to your questions are in the post, from Ford’s #’s to the Lakers
February 4th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
@TBL: I read it all and didn’t agree with a lot of it. TJ Ford is not that good. Couple that with the huge injury risk he brought with him, and I don’t see a problem with his analysis of the trade that day. Obviously in hindsight, no one ever hits things right on the head, but part of his argument was that they would have to extend him for big money (they did) and be stuck paying starter’s money to a back up (which he is). They’re going to have to pay Calderon big money this offseason, who actually deserves it, and have a lot of money tied up in two PGs.
And when you have to preface any argument about Ford with “when healthy,” that sort of speaks to how big of a risk it was to trade for the guy, then extend him long-term.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Way to analyze all of those moves in a vaccuum. Peja has basically added nothing that Vlad Rad couldn’t have to the Hornets. They are a great team because of one player: Chris Paul. That doesn’t validate giving that monster contract to Peja when he was injury prone BEFORE the signing and has been the same since. As far as the success of Toronto vs. Milwaukee…that is hardly a fair comparison. Toronto’s surrounding talent is far superior (Chris Bosh anyone?). And you fairly point out that Fords points and shooting percentage went up and turnovers went down but fail to point out that his ASSISTS were also down. The same is true of his 3pt % and his rebounding. It seems clear to me that Ford IS A BACKUP on this Raptors team behind a much better player in Calderon.
Finally, to refute two stupid points: One, the Lakers may be 23rd in points allowed but they are 8th in points allowed per 100 possesions which actually takes into account a teams pace. (The Lakers also rank 5th in points scored per 100 possesions). And second, does TBL realize that the Lakers are 5-1 against Phoenix and Denver this year with the one loss coming against Phoenix after Bynum went down. Like TBL says, saying a team is the best in the conference on paper is a subjective argument and I don’t think it is a huge stretch to say the Lakers are now the best on paper. Whether they can make the pieces fit is another matter.
TBL, your argument is full of holes. I expected more when it appears so much work went into the post.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
It’s not so much that the Spurs win in odd years. They just don’t ever do well the year after they win a title. They have never come remotely close to repeating, never advancing past the second round.
I don’t see how the Lakers are the best on paper either. If folks want to argue fantasy numbers I guess the argument can be made. Perhaps that is what the “paper” Hollinger speaks of, is for. 5 on 5, factoring in experience, chemistry, defense, spacing, depth, etc, etc, no way the Lakers are favorites for anything.
If a team can rise up from not winning a play-off series in awhile it will be the Hornets, a team with a stud PG and a much better play-off caliber PF in David West. Gasol is a Euro weanie. And he is going to be the Laker banger next to the raw Bynum?
I wouldn’t give them any better chance than Utah (stud PG and again a much better play-off PF in Boozer), San Antonio (despite the numbers), Nugs, Suns or Mavs.
A lot is going to depend on how things shake out. The West is too close to call right now, in terms of any type of play-off positioning. Are the Hornets really going wo win their division with the Spurs and Mavs? If the Lakers are the faves are they going to overtake the Suns? And any one of 3 teams could win the other division or be left out.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
personally, i like the numbers analysis in baseball. hollinger was trying to quantify something intangible, and he does it quite well. his analysis is usually spot on when it comes to assessing a player’s value and potential.
i agree tho he falls short in predicting certain things, and especially when comparing the impact a player will have on a new team. while the PER is great for seeing a quick, yet incomplete, breakdown of a player’s value, it fails to take into account things like scheme and other personnel, somthing you alluded to.
but hollinger is solid nonetheless, and he’s MUCH better than stein, bucher, etc. when it comes to actually assessing players.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I hate to double-post, but I remain dumbfounded by TBL’s declaration that he would take Ford over Mo Williams 10 out of 10 times.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I have to agree with Papageorgio here. I tend to like Hollinger, and think that his analysis is insightful even if his methods are convoluted. The PER stuff is largely nonsense in my mind, but I appreciate that there is thought behind it. As for Charlie V. for TJ, I thought at the time it was a steal for Milwaukee, and I think the same today. It’s impossible to say that IF a guy hadn’t gotten injured the trade would be great, because Ford is a small guy with a long history of injuries, when they traded for him, they knew that. Charlie hasn’t developed exactly as everyone thought, but that’s probably a result of circumstance more than anything. At the end of the day, Charlie still has value where Ford’s has to be pretty much gone at this point.
On the Lakers, the trade obviously makes them better, but it’s one thing to imagine Gasol and Bynum together and another to see them play well together. They’ll have to share the front-court, and while they may make one another better, they may also bump heads and freakishly-oversized bodies too. We have at least a month to speculate.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Jay V - What have you seen from Mo Williams that would lead you to pick him over Ford?
February 4th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
The Lakers are ESPN’s bread and butter in the NBA because of their large fan base. So of course they’re going to blow it out of proportion. There is built-in audience that wants to believe exactly what he said, so he sucks up to them. They do this all the time with the big teams. Scrutinze them to death.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Hollinger also picked my Rockets to win 60 games (and the Championship). Oh, and not for nothing, but the esteemed Jackie Butler you mention? The Rockets acquired his rights in the Luis Scola deal.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Another factor with Gasol, to post his 19 PPG he needs over 14 shots a night.
Where are those shots going to come from? Factoring in that they only plyed in about half the games, the Lakers traded away 3 shots per game from Kwame and the PG.
Who is giving up the other 11 shots a night? I am sure Laker fans have their answers but with it comes a reduction in production from those players. People talk about “how great the Lakers have been” so far this season. Before Gasol they have been the darlings of the NBA. Now things are getting shaken up and players who were producing enough for people to rave about them are now going to have to adjust and sacrifice 11 shots a game as a group. Can they do it while everyone stays happy?
Paper doesn’t account for that stuff.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
The NBA is a team sport? Really?
February 4th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
It was only a matter of time before this turned into a Laker bashing thread like every other NBA post…
And for once I absolutely agree with Nick. Well said. And Mo Williams > TJ Ford.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
If at all possible, dont see this as a racist comment, because it is not…I just never thought that there would be a day in the modern NBA where the acquisition of a white guy would make a team a favorite to win it all…
***Discalimer to above Statement…
Anyone who thought Steve Nash was a key to PHX becoming a favorite to win it all AT THE TIME OF THE ACQUISITION…not now….is completly full of shit
February 4th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Whoa…a non Super Bowl post! Hollinger is by far not the worst analyst at the wwl. Like most number-crunchers there is no accounting for chemistry with Hollinger. I think more than any other sport chemistry is a big deal in basketball.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
@Dorn: Having good players is a great problem to have. If the Cavs suddenly got Pau Gasol, we’d find a way to make it work, and not worry about who wouldn’t be getting shots.
Off the top of my head, I’d say Fisher, Radmanovic, Walton, and Turiaf could and should shoot less.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
TBL, I agree with you on Williams. Nick is right about the whole injury thing when it comes to Ford but what the hell has Williams ever done?
He is another that looks great on paper but NEVER wins. You can’t play PG the way he plays PG and win. You can play PG the way TJ Ford plays and win. But of course the key is getting him to play.
I am not even a fan of Williams and I don’t see a big talent disparity between the Bucks and Raptors. Chris Bosh isn’t why the Raptors win. He helps but he doesn’t control games the way other stars do. And besides, Mike Redd is pretty good himself and much more likely to take over a game.
Personally, going back to Williams I would rather have an injured TJ Ford than have Mo Williams running my team.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
BTW if there was such a thing as “best team on paper” winning it all than the 2003 Lakers and Karl Malone would have rings…and technically…since its still fresh in our minds - Junior Seau and Randy Moss too
February 4th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
As someone who reads and remembers everything regarding this league — every fucking thing — no analyst has anywhere near the predictive record as Hollinger since 2002.
Teams, players, draft picks, international prospects … nobody’s even close.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Question for Laker fans. You are going to compete for a title with Paul Gasol potentially having to cover:
Carlos Boozer, Tim Duncan, Amare Stoudamire and Kevn Garnett or Rasheed Wallace, in back to back to back to back 7 game series?
Seriously?
February 4th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
@KD: Check out Dave Berri at WoW (you probably alread do). He writes far, far less than Hollinger, but has a great track record, IMO.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I enjoy reading the disagreement. No time to respond now, will try to do so tonight.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
@Dorn: That will be very difficult, for sure. But assuming the players you named guard Gasol, how are Okur, Oberto, Marion, Perkins, or Maxiell going to guard Bynum?
2 good to potentially great post players > 1
/Can’t believe I’m defending the Lakers. Hate them.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Grunge - Is Butler still on the Rockets?
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/teams/hou/roster;_ylt=AoQfqKPGLAxXVkgFZrcWC1Z.0bYF
And KD, given your job, of course you read more … i suppose I only go to Hollinger once in a while, and I happen to hit on all the times he is wrong.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Nick, of course there are guys who COULD shoot less. A guy like Turiaf probably earns his shots with his hard work. You can’t really take those away unless he isn’t on the floor. It is not like the Lakers are running isolation plays for him.
I am talking about the guys that you take out of the offense to make room for FNG (Fucking New Guy). Are they going to be happy with it all?
Look at Cleveland, Damon Jones hasn’t helped with his I’m a bitch attitude. You start taking roles away from guys, you potentially have that. It can be overcome, but just another thing to think about.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Gasol is not a great post player Nick. He is good. He is not Kevin McHale or Kareem or The Dream. Those guys were great. Maybe Bynum will be that someday. Gasol never will. He is who he is.
How is Perkins going to guard Bynum? The same way he has twice this season. Bynum scored 12 points on the Celtics. Perkins is a fine defender. Gasol is not. Not sure I get your point.
Bynum is a kid who averages 13 PPG. He just got out of high school. I am talking about Gasol having to guard play-off experienced STUDS.
How is Perkins going to guard Bynum? Funny, Nick. Very funny.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
@Dorn: Perkins isn’t Ben Wallace on Defense. Ray Allen isn’t Jordan. Rondo isn’t Chris Paul.
Why would you compare Gasol to arguably a top 4 Center of all time? How does that further the discussion? Fine; I concede. Pau Gasol is not one of the 10 best players of all time.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Dorn. Gasol was the MVP on a championship team not too long ago. He can play. Its hard to say he is not a great post player. He is very efficent on offensive and he is big enough to guard the 4 or 5 on defense. He is also a above average passing big man. He took Mephis to the playoffs in the West three times in the last four seasons. KG lead minnesota to the playoffs once in that same span. Also, under Frattelo they were one of the better defense teams in the league.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Why does Pau Gasol have to score 19 points a game for him to be successful on the Lakers? He will now be surrounded by a team full of great shooters. Why can’t he average 15 points and up his assists from 3 to 4 or 5? The way I see it he will be shooting a higher percentage since Kobe will be getting the most attention and he will have players like Walton, Kobe, Fish, Vlad Rad, and Vujacic knocking down threes. Also, Gasol is not going to be given the primary task of guarding a team’s best post threat. That will go to Bynum and Turiaf. By the way Dornoch…take a look at Stoudamire’s numbers in the two games against Bynum this year…simply atrocious.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Who would EVER say that Butler had more potential than Tyson Chandler?
Chandler has been one of the best prospects since he was 12 yrs old. And he actually has a heart.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
SM: Gasol was the MVP on a championship team not too long ago.
Was this in Europe or something?
February 4th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
yes, FIBA 2006
February 4th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Butler is a FA right now, but (like with the Aaron McKie situation), the Rockets can use him in a sign-and-trade deal if the need arises. So, Butler is not on the team, but he still factors into our cap situation.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Jake…i was wondering that myself. nba scouts drool over guys like chandler.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Chandler’s a stud, but I think the issue at the time of the trade was that he was making $10MM per year and hadn’t shown himself to be a stud…yet, whereas you could have had Jackie Butler for $2MM per year.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
TBL — we’re talking books that went back to 2002 that this guy was writing, championing more minutes for guys like Michael Redd and Andrei Kirilenko when they could barely get off the bench. Not only was he calling out the Euro-bred prospects years in advance, he was writing about how someone like Anthony Parker should come back stateside: and now Parker’s taking off. All last season, even with Dallas winning a bunch of close games, he was picking the Spurs.
The guy has an uncanny knack, beyond the stat-stuff, of sussing out players/matchups/coaches that either sound right or don’t. The reason he gets there is because he works so hard, and luck favors those who are prepared.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
And, let’s be honest here:
I’d still much prefer CV playing big minutes on my team than Ford playing big minutes
The Hornets are not going to enjoy paying a 33 and 34 year old Peja an average of 14 million a year in 2009-10, and 2010-11. The guy’s played 80 games once in his career, and he’s giving them 15.6 points, no D, no rebounds, and diminished passing skills for 11.6-million this year. I mean, 92 percent from the free throw line? Who cares?
February 4th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
@ KD- first fan of Charlie Villinueva i have ever seen. He is a top notch bust. But i do have a question for you. Does Charlie V have any eyebrows yet?
February 4th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I late to the game, but I am going to agree with KD and Nick in disagreeing with TBL. As a big fan of Hollinger, I can tell you one disclaimer for reading his stuff is that his statistical analysis is a tool only (he admits as much) and does account for all of the factors such as chemistry, injury history… As far as this trade for the lakers, I think it puts them in the championship discussion with Bos, Det, SA and Pho.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The triangle isn’t easy to learn and not everyone fits in. Great point above about where Gasol finds his shots. Does he fit into the chemistry to make the offense better or will he just be a stagnant participant? What happens when the Gun starts shooting at a 1.5x to 2x rate than he is today? Then the shots really drop for everyone, including Gasol. Will he accept that role?
Gasol is a very good rebvounder and will help make the Lakers the best on the boards in the Association. He is a negative on defense, which will not help on a team with several negative defenders.
I think this trade is very, very up-in-the-air for about a month. It won’t take long to see how Gasol fits into the Lakers style…
February 4th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I too disagree on every argument here. I still can’t wrap my head around TBL thinking that paying big money to TJ Ford to be a backup to Calderon is a solid move in the long run where cap flexibility is EVERYTHING in the NBA. Everything has to factor into that trade. Same with the flexibility New Orleans loses by paying Peja $11-14 million for 15 pts a game (with nothing else) in maybe 60 games a year, when they’ll have major Chris Paul and David West contracts to deal with soon. Again, that’s going to kill their cap flexibility in a low-revenue market - you can’t afford to make mistakes like that and play with the big boys. IMO Hollinger was spot on.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
a) who said Ford is going to be a backup? He’s hurt. Calderon is playing outstanding filling in right now. But it’s been 30 games.
b) if you want to look long term and say, ‘hey, the Hornets are going to be cash strapped, that’s fine. But Hollinger didn’t say that. He said in two years they’d be a crappy 38 win team capped to high hell. Well, that’s wrong. They are one of the league’s best teams, and his analysis of Chandler was way off the mark. If Peja stays healthy, great. If he goes down for a second straight year, maybe Hollinger’s statements earn some merit. But for a guy to CRUSH a team for FA signings, and then to watch them rise to the top of the league soonafter … well …
c) Not aware of Hollinger’s books/euro stuff. Most of the euro reports i read are from Chad Ford, and admittedly, i haven’t read much lately. I stand by what i wrote - Hollinger’s 0-for-3. (And yes, I’m well aware the Lakers have owned the Nuggers/Suns thus far this season. No shame in saying i was Lakers fan from when i started following hoops until the day they traded Shaq.)
February 4th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
TBL, on ‘C’ …
… that’s fine, but just consider this:
From what I’ve read, Hollinger’s about 292-for-350 at this point.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
@TBL: In answer to A)
John Hollinger:
It’s been 30 games…this year. Calderon played just as well last year. Toronto was just too stupid to play him. Check out his FG% and A/TO ratio. That’s what you want your point guard to offer.
TJ Ford is a nice little change of pace point guard off the bench, but I’d hate to be paying him starter’s money, which is exactly what they’ll be doing for the rest of that contract.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I think Hollinger is alright, I just don’t like how he (and now many others) trot out a player’s PER as some kind of end-all-be-all of basketball statistics. What I wonder is: If Holligner sees a player and thinks he’s good, but goes back home to the computer which tells him said player sucks, does he defer to what he sees or what his formula tells him?
The thing that I think endears some people and pisses-off other visa-vi Hollinger is that he almost always uses his formula to shape his opinion. Some people find it refreshing that, in a world where sports punditry relies almost entirely on emotion and gut-feelings, some (in this case, Hollinger) are bringing rationality to the table. Flip the coin though, and others view the work of statisticians in sports (in this case, basketball) as nothing more than dudes with pocket protectors spouting figures with no practical knowledge of the sport they’re commenting on. As with almost everything, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Pau and Hubie Brown were winning 50 games a few years ago, getting Pau is a coup. I think Lakers, Phoenix, Dallas and San Antonio are the 4 favorites, and are pretty even.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Hollanger is 0-2 in exact hindsight (maybe) on those 2 topics (which most of us also would have gotten wrong). He is as good as anyone probably on the thousands of predictions that get made overall. To find somebody that has gotten 2 predictions wrong is to find a born fetus.
And if Kobe Bryant is in the argument for “best player in the game” this team is clearly the best team on paper. You put Jordan or even LBJ w/ the “zenmaster” farmer, fisher, turiaf, walton, odom, bynum and gasol and its that ez.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Yes “Hubie and Pau” were winning 50 games a few years ago. What they weren’t doing is winning play-off games. They got swept swept all 3 times they made the play-offs.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:31 am
The Lakers hate on the Big Lead is ridiculous. The Suns are such the pick for casual NBA fans that have no team.
The Lakers are CLEARLY the best team on paper (and will be the best team by the middle of next year if not the middle of this years playoffs). You can’t compare this Lakers team to the team last year. Bynum has made a QUANTUM leap from last year and become possibly the BEST CENTER IN THE GAME NOT NAMED DWIGHT HOWARD. Farmar is very much improved. And the Lakers are healthy (healthier anyway). Oh, and they got a Top-10 forward in the league. So, hate all you want, but objectively speaking they are clearly the best team on paper.
Whatever. The Big Lead has always been sub-par on it’s NBA analysis (though I do agree with some elements of the post above).