Quote:
Originally Posted by unluckyseventeen
Stein and Bucher are wankers, yeah... come to think of it, just about all of ESPN's writers are wankers, but you can't get worse than Hollinger. The guy tries to boil the entire NBA down to a math formula and has written the most laughable NBA articles to my recollection.
I was moreso stunned not to hear that he is their best NBA writer (maybe only because their whole staff sucks), but you also said you were a big fan of his work. That, itself, is worthy of a  . |
Hollinger is indeed the best basketball writer that ESPN has.
The reason why is because he's always looking for new sources of information. He tries to use the numbers to gain insight/knowledge on stuff that he doesn't already know. He doesn't write based on his 'feelings' or biases (in general). All of the other writers for ESPN write based on a perspective they've already formed. Hollinger is constantly trying to change his perspective.
Does he miss the mark sometimes? Yeah, he does. But he's a good statistician with a very good grasp on what his statistics entail. He understands the flaws and limitations of his statistics, which is something that message board posters just cannot seem to understand (this isn't directed at you). When he says point blank, "PER does not measure things like defensive rotations and other defensive/offensive intangibles, and so should not be a final say in the totality of a player's contributions" people still rail on him for his stat being unable to account for these things.
My only criticism of him in fact is that he tends to value his own statistic a little heavily. I do concede that it's a good statistic however.
Some of his methodology produces inaccurate results on occasion. One such case is the daily power rankings. Heavily favored into these completely mathematical rankings is total point differential per game. He uses it because it's traditionally one of the strongest indicators of how good a team will fare in the postseason, even better than team record. However, one example where this fails is this year, when the Cavs are 26-20 and able to compete with any team in the league when Lebron plays. However, he's missed 7 games, and almost every one has been a 20+ point blowout, heavily skewing their point differential such that it's -0.6 right now. This is an example of a number that doesn't accurately reflect the quality of the team because of those skewed games, and here his methodology fails. I am sure he is aware of this, however.
Appreciate that Hollinger is constantly trying to learn. He may not always be right, but he's trying to gain information.