PDA

View Full Version : SVG Interview : "I read as much John Hollinger as I can"



Chronz
09-30-2009, 10:26 PM
http://www.thirdquartercollapse.com/2009/9/29/1059975/orlando-magic-media-day-stan-van

Do you think it's harder to quantify a player's value in basketball than it baseball, given that baseball is more of a stat-oriented sport?

I think baseball is easier, yeah. I just think it lends itself easier to quantifying that. I don't think, okay sure, you might have a guy hitting ahead of you that helps you see some better pitches but there isn't as much effecting your teammates. I think that baseball is a far more individual sport. I mean, Hanley Ramirez [of the Florida Marlins] hitting .350 is ... he's a great, great hitter. It really doesn't matter who he's playing with. They're not going to come out and double-team him because he doesn't have enough hitting around him. I mean, it's going to come down to his individual talents.

Basketball is far different, in that regard, and so I do think you have to be a little bit careful but at the same time, I think the numbers are important. There are some that I look at more than others but I'm always open to research things that other people are doing that prove certain things are worth looking at. I think, a guy like John Hollinger [of ESPN.com] has been on the cutting edge of that and I read John's stuff as much as I possibly can because I think he's a guy that's studied it and knows what he's doing and his numbers make a lot of sense. I follow those things. Some of them make more sense to me than others and so, I'll latch on to them and others I'll let go but yeah, I think it's important trying to learn more and more about what we do.


Just found it interesting, for all the **** Hollinger takes, he seems to be pretty highly regarded.

JordansBulls
09-30-2009, 10:32 PM
http://www.thirdquartercollapse.com/2009/9/29/1059975/orlando-magic-media-day-stan-van


Just found it interesting, for all the **** Hollinger takes, he seems to be pretty highly regarded.

Only people who disagree with him are people who don't like PER.

ManRam
09-30-2009, 10:44 PM
Is there anyone who works for ESPN that isn't hated here? Ghandi could be the next baseball tonight analyst, and the amount of hate he'd get would be ridiculous.

I like Hollinger. People just hate people when they say something they don't agree with, and then never get over it. They forget all the good in place of the occasional "bad".

DamnGoat
09-30-2009, 10:50 PM
Only people who disagree with him are people who don't like PER.
It is kind of a made up stat though. He uses it like the only meaningful stat in the NBA and bases all his predictions off of it.

That's why people don't like him, rightfully so IMO. Plus he's a big Celtics homer.

JNA17
09-30-2009, 10:51 PM
:laugh: You know you fail as a coach when u read an article from the worst espn annalist.

Chronz
09-30-2009, 10:58 PM
:laugh: You know you fail as a coach when u read an article from the worst espn annalist.

You know your word regarding professional analysis is full of fail when you cant even spell ANALYST right, atleast you didnt say analist

Chronz
09-30-2009, 11:00 PM
It is kind of a made up stat though. He uses it like the only meaningful stat in the NBA and bases all his predictions off of it.

That's why people don't like him, rightfully so IMO. Plus he's a big Celtics homer.

Of course its a made up stat, but its made up of logical deductions and doesnt pretend to measure the immeasurable

theuuord
09-30-2009, 11:02 PM
People like Hollinger when his statistical models back them up, and hate him when they don't.

ko8e24
09-30-2009, 11:15 PM
and we're gonna give importance to the words of Stan Van Genius because?????

o i kno, cuz he took out an unhealthy Rafer Alston outta the nba finals who was avg a measly 1.2 ppg and brought back in a FULLY HEALTHY AND INTEGRATED Jameer Nelson who was avg 42 ppg to help the magic win the title. Of course, that's why we should take his words sooooo seriously.

JermanJaysFan
09-30-2009, 11:21 PM
Van Gundy just got paid $200 000 for that endorsement, haha.

SteveNash
09-30-2009, 11:29 PM
I wouldn't have as much of a problem with Hollinger if he didn't put so much faith in the numbers. I've know he's said in the pats that there is weaknesses to stats, but I've also seen him say x > y based on stats alone.


Only people who disagree with him are people who don't like PER.

Steven Hill = GOAT

macc
10-01-2009, 12:00 AM
and we're gonna give importance to the words of Stan Van Genius because?????

o i kno, cuz he took out an unhealthy Rafer Alston outta the nba finals who was avg a measly 1.2 ppg and brought back in a FULLY HEALTHY AND INTEGRATED Jameer Nelson who was avg 42 ppg to help the magic win the title. Of course, that's why we should take his words sooooo seriously.



Ok????? Your point is........



Yes the same SVG who got an underrated and unexpected team to the finals. Yes that guy.



Now back on topic. I don't know how finals talk got mixed up with what he thinks of Hollinger.

iggypop123
10-01-2009, 12:20 AM
:facepalm: seriously stan?

ManRam
10-01-2009, 01:09 AM
and we're gonna give importance to the words of Stan Van Genius because?????

o i kno, cuz he took out an unhealthy Rafer Alston outta the nba finals who was avg a measly 1.2 ppg and brought back in a FULLY HEALTHY AND INTEGRATED Jameer Nelson who was avg 42 ppg to help the magic win the title. Of course, that's why we should take his words sooooo seriously.

Alston was terrible that series, and in the playoffs as a whole. This guy could have done better than Alston (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2032/2342562553_815a382814_o.jpg).

That move didn't cost them the Finals...

I think SVG has solidified himself as a top 5 coach in the league, definitely top 10. Make fun of him all he wants, but whatever he is doing is working.

I think Hollinger's statistical insight is usually spot on and very interesting. Like theuuord said, people hate him when he doesn't say something nice about your favorite player, and love him when he does. Thing is, people remember the hate.

ko8e24
10-01-2009, 01:16 AM
Alston was terrible that series, and in the playoffs as a whole. This guy could have done better than Alston (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2032/2342562553_815a382814_o.jpg).

That move didn't cost them the Finals...

I think SVG has solidified himself as a top 5 coach in the league, definitely top 10. Make fun of him all he wants, but whatever he is doing is working.

I think Hollinger's statistical insight is usually spot on and very interesting. Like theuuord said, people hate him when he doesn't say something nice about your favorite player, and love him when he does. Thing is, people remember the hate.


Jameer Nelson is a terrific player.


Now, Alston played well the first 3 rd, especially with hitting his shots in the cleveland series in the ECF. he sucked in the finals cuz he never got into a rhythm cuz van gundy would bench his arse after like 8 min of the 1st qtr, and bring him nelson. when fish hit that 3 in regulation of game 4, the guy who gave him that much room to pull up was jameer nelson (unhealthy, and not fully integrated). alston, the veteran who prolly would not make that same mistake, would probably close in on D-fish's shot or would force D-fish to give it up to somebody else on the lakers team.

and then, in OT of that game, kobe gets double teamed, and the guy who leaves FIsh open for another 3 to double team kobe, and gets popped in the mouth is jameer nelson. nelson (again, unhealthy and not fully integrated), was put in such position by stan van gundy. it made nelson look bad on the court, and made alson look bad on the bench and the inconsistent playing times that he received on the court throught the 5 games of the nba finals (only exception was game 3 in orlando where he got the majority of the minutes, and played well, and was probably the ex-factor in helping orlando beat the lakers in that game).

abe_froman
10-01-2009, 01:28 AM
I wouldn't have as much of a problem with Hollinger if he didn't put so much faith in the numbers. I've know he's said in the pats that there is weaknesses to stats, but I've also seen him say x > y based on stats alone.

but numbers are unbiased,as opposed to say fans,which why some people dont like him.they have their fav team and players and only want to hear the echo chamber calling back.its not a perfect formula,but its better than what was being used before

JayW_1023
10-01-2009, 09:58 AM
I think Hollingers PER and the quantification of Win Shares is far more accurate than trying to measure a players value with what they average per game. That said, I do believe the overanalysis with just statistics doesn't tell the entire story either. I used to think statistics were overrated...but recently, I have been convinced that stats are important.

It's the misinterpretation of per game statistics that annoys me the most. Stats like steals per game or blocks per game, for instance are poor indicators of good defense...especially because it's impossible to quantify altered shots or physical defense.

kgbaseball
10-01-2009, 02:32 PM
Baseball is by far the harder sport to quantify value. No way you can argue against that. Your performance in baseball is largely tied to your teammates' performances, whereas in basketball, that is not the case.

KnicksorBust
10-01-2009, 02:43 PM
It's not a coincidence that the best players in the league are also the top guys in PER rating every year. Obviously there is no perfect stat that tells the whole story but I love people trying to find new ways to analyze (made sure to check the spelling there so Chronz didn't bash me lol) basketball.

theuuord
10-01-2009, 02:47 PM
Baseball is by far the harder sport to quantify value. No way you can argue against that. Your performance in baseball is largely tied to your teammates' performances, whereas in basketball, that is not the case.

i hope you mean the opposite here.

Fool
10-01-2009, 03:17 PM
Hollinger is "cutting edge" because he predicts different than what you would normally "expect", it's not cutting edge because it's better.


You know your word regarding professional analysis is full of fail when you cant even spell ANALYST right, atleast you didnt say analist

Normally, I would also say something about spelling here, but honestly, you didn't even defend your case, you just attacked his spelling.

SteveNash
10-01-2009, 03:25 PM
but numbers are unbiased,as opposed to say fans,which why some people dont like him.they have their fav team and players and only want to hear the echo chamber calling back.its not a perfect formula,but its better than what was being used before

The problem is that you can't measure everything on the basketball court. You have to look at the intangibles that's why I say there's a high margin of error for PER I'd say at least a 5 point swing if not more to get an accurate comparison.

Chronz
10-01-2009, 03:30 PM
Normally, I would also say something about spelling here, but honestly, you didn't even defend your case, you just attacked his spelling.

Its more of an invitation for him to defend his, because he doesnt really provide any factual basis behind his train of thought... mkay?

Chronz
10-01-2009, 03:37 PM
The problem is that you can't measure everything on the basketball court. You have to look at the intangibles that's why I say there's a high margin of error for PER I'd say at least a 5 point swing if not more to get an accurate comparison.

You dont think most players in the league lack those intangibles that make them truly stand out that much above their #'s. The ones that do generally have quantifiable skills offensively, either shooting or providing space for their teammates, or they are great defensively. Obviously the greats that have the most can stand out above his peers, but what do you do when both greats share the same traits from a historical perspective?

Just the same there are cancerous players who are worse than their #'s indicate but they never amount to anything anyways by virtue of being on bad teams due to their inadequacies, unless they are surrounded by defenders in a weak league (AI) and even AI wasnt that far off his #'s. Still a generally great player.

abe_froman
10-01-2009, 03:43 PM
The problem is that you can't measure everything on the basketball court. You have to look at the intangibles that's why I say there's a high margin of error for PER I'd say at least a 5 point swing if not more to get an accurate comparison.

but you can in every other sport,why not this one?

now his is flawed,he even admits to that that its not perfect,doesnt measure everything.but i dont think the swing is that high...and is certainly better than per game or the classic "i watch"

just saying its a step in the right direction,and among the best tools we have available right now

kgbaseball
10-01-2009, 06:21 PM
Every sport has areas where quantifying performance is impossible. I believe basketball has the least amount of those areas.

SteveNash
10-01-2009, 09:52 PM
You dont think most players in the league lack those intangibles that make them truly stand out that much above their #'s. The ones that do generally have quantifiable skills offensively, either shooting or providing space for their teammates, or they are great defensively. Obviously the greats that have the most can stand out above his peers, but what do you do when both greats share the same traits from a historical perspective?

Just the same there are cancerous players who are worse than their #'s indicate but they never amount to anything anyways by virtue of being on bad teams due to their inadequacies, unless they are surrounded by defenders in a weak league (AI) and even AI wasnt that far off his #'s. Still a generally great player.

The biggest problem with PER and any other formula based on traditional stats is defense. Blocks and steals don't cut it, it also really irks me to base a stat on a possession basis instead of overall, even if it has translated well when a player has gotten more minutes.

Basically you can create whatever formula you want and argue that you're formula is better than the other guys. Good players usually put up good stats, so it's going to be hard to argue. You can lie with statistic to accomplish whatever goal you want (within reason). Stats can be fun, but you shouldn't take them as the gospel.


but you can in every other sport,why not this one?

now his is flawed,he even admits to that that its not perfect,doesnt measure everything.but i dont think the swing is that high...and is certainly better than per game or the classic "i watch"

just saying its a step in the right direction,and among the best tools we have available right now

I didn't say it was exclusive to basketball. He has admitted it isn't perfect. He has also said that player X is better than player Y based solely on PER.