PDA

View Full Version : Hollinger Playoff Odds: Bulls favorite to win championship



D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 07:30 PM
As a Bulls fan, I even have to disagree with this. So many of you take Hollingers mathematics so seriously. so for the ones that do, do you agree with this? I say the Lakers are still the favorites like I have been saying for a while now.

1.Bulls: Finals Odds: 32.6% Champ: 17.9%
2. Spurs: Finals Odds: 29.8 Champ 17.8%
3. Lakers: Finals Odds: 27.9% Champ 15.4%
4. Boston: Final Odds: 23.3% Champ 11.3%
5. Miami: Finals Odds 21.2% Champ 10.6%

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds

RZZZA
03-07-2011, 07:31 PM
God, I hate mathematics. Worst subject ever. Never done a lick of good for anybody.

:mad:

MiamiWadeCounty
03-07-2011, 07:33 PM
Good for the Bulls, I guess. They have been playing great and have a very good shot to win it all, however the Lakers' back-to-back titles should be factored into this somehow and I believe they are number one. Also these numbers don't take into account changes throughout the season. The Sizers have about a 4% chance of reaching the Finals while the Knicks have about a 1%. I don't think the Knicks will make it obviously, but they certainly have a much better shot than the sixers with their recent additions.

Muttman73
03-07-2011, 07:34 PM
Fun to think about but well see...

towlsmoke420
03-07-2011, 07:35 PM
Bulls vs LA baby ........ Bring it On!

bulls_world23
03-07-2011, 07:36 PM
I BULLive :win:

dnewguy
03-07-2011, 07:37 PM
:laugh2:

SteveNash
03-07-2011, 07:38 PM
Last year at this time he gave Orlando a 25% chance of winning and that the Jazz had a better chance than the Lakers....

asandhu23
03-07-2011, 07:39 PM
meh

Draco
03-07-2011, 07:39 PM
1.7% is where it's at... so congrats to the 2011 NBA champions, the 76ers.

mudvayne387
03-07-2011, 07:40 PM
If the Bulls have to play the Knicks in the first round, their chances of winning drops to 0.00%

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 07:40 PM
Last year at this time he gave Orlando a 25% chance of winning and that the Jazz had a better chance than the Lakers....

and yet so many people take this guys word and mathematics so seriously. maybe they should rethink their position and stop using hollingers stats as proof.

towlsmoke420
03-07-2011, 07:41 PM
cool

TylerSL
03-07-2011, 07:42 PM
As a Bulls fan, I even have to disagree with this. So many of you take Hollingers mathematics so seriously. so for the ones that do, do you agree with this? I say the Lakers are still the favorites like I have been saying for a while now.

1.Bulls: Finals Odds: 32.6% Champ: 17.9%
2. Spurs: Finals Odds: 29.8 Champ 17.8%
3. Lakers: Finals Odds: 27.9% Champ 15.4%
4. Boston: Final Odds: 23.3% Champ 11.3%
5. Miami: Finals Odds 21.2% Champ 10.6%

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds


these numbers dont mean anything really, but it is interesting that the Bulls are #1.

I have a question tho. Since your a Bulls fan, dont you think you should have a Bulls sig, why do you have to have a heat trashing sig???? I am not saying anything bad about Bulls fans, or saying Bulls fans are the only haters, there is alot of Heat fans that hate the Bulls, but I do mainly see Bulls fans have sigs against the Heat than I do Heat fans have sigs against the Bulls...

The-Human-Cigar
03-07-2011, 07:42 PM
While that would be GREAT.....

I would have to say that the Bulls are a good shooting guard away from threatening Boston and the Lakers. I'd put the team in the top 10 for sure. Maybe top 5 if the west didn't have so many damn good teams every year. I'm still weary that the Bulls will close out the season injury bug free after Noah and Carlos had their issues.

I'm also not fooled by the Heat and the Magic and I'm sure they'll get their acts together closer to the playoffs.

Swashcuff
03-07-2011, 07:42 PM
1.7% is where it's at... so congrats to the 2011 NBA champions, the 76ers.

:win::win::win:

J4KOP99
03-07-2011, 07:44 PM
**** Hollinger. All I have to say is that this years Playoffs are going to be unreal. All the good teams hurt the regular season but come playoff time... jesus christ it will be wild.

bulls_world23
03-07-2011, 07:45 PM
:laugh2:

whats so funny? The fact that the heat lost 4 in a row, or the fact that they are 5th on that list? :confused:

RZZZA
03-07-2011, 07:46 PM
these numbers dont mean anything really, but it is interesting that the Bulls are #1.

I have a question tho. Since your a Bulls fan, dont you think you should have a Bulls sig, why do you have to have a heat trashing sig???? I am not saying anything bad about Bulls fans, or saying Bulls fans are the only haters, there is alot of Heat fans that hate the Bulls, but I do mainly see Bulls fans have sigs against the Heat than I do Heat fans have sigs against the Bulls...

Bulls fans on PSD tend to hate the Heat, that's just the way it is, no sense trying to change it.

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 07:46 PM
these numbers dont mean anything really, but it is interesting that the Bulls are #1.

I have a question tho. Since your a Bulls fan, dont you think you should have a Bulls sig, why do you have to have a heat trashing sig???? I am not saying anything bad about Bulls fans, or saying only Bulls fans are the only haters, there is alot of Heat fans that hate the Bulls, but I do mainly see Bulls fans have sigs against the Heat than I do Heat fans have sigs against the Bulls...

I'm not trashing the heat, im making fun of lebron and bosh and i cant stand lebron and never could for many years now. bosh since the first bulls game showed me what a whimp he was and lost my respect. I dont have anything against the heat, wade in my favorite player in the NBA, but i cant stand bosh and even more so, james.

abe_froman
03-07-2011, 07:48 PM
its a nice thing being a bulls fan and all but i'm not buying anything into it just because hollinger carries so little credibility with me

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 07:49 PM
its a nice thing being a bulls fan and all but i'll not buying anything into it just because hollinger carries so little credibility with me

agreed...... I cant remember hollinger ever being right

RZZZA
03-07-2011, 07:49 PM
yeah, who cares what hollinger says. Just another douchebag who doesn't know crap about the future.

TylerSL
03-07-2011, 07:50 PM
I'm not trashing the heat, im making fun of lebron and bosh and i cant stand lebron and never could for many years now. bosh since the first bulls game showed me what a whimp he was and lost my respect. I dont have anything against the heat, wade in my favorite player in the NBA, but i cant stand bosh and even more so, james.

I respect that, but you didnt really answer my question so I will ask again. Why cant you just have a Bulls sig instead of a Heat bash sig?? (The Bosh chill comment is a bash)

TylerSL
03-07-2011, 07:51 PM
yeah, who cares what hollinger says. Just another douchebag who doesn't know crap about the future.

I know right, and I hate it when ESPN and CBS call their analysts "experts" because they are all incompitant...

RZZZA
03-07-2011, 07:51 PM
I respect that, but you didnt really answer my question so I will ask again. Why cant you just have a Bulls sig instead of a Heat bash sig?? (The Bosh chill comment is a bash)

because Bulls fans take immense pride and pleasure in sweeping the Heat and making them cry, that's why.

SteveNash
03-07-2011, 07:52 PM
and yet so many people take this guys word and mathematics so seriously. maybe they should rethink their position and stop using hollingers stats as proof.

I don't think many people take Hollinger seriously unless it confirms what the believe. Which is the whole problem with statistics. Heavy manipulation to solidify your opinion.

gilly
03-07-2011, 07:53 PM
1.7% is where it's at... so congrats to the 2011 NBA champions, the 76ers.

1.7% is good enough for the Bulls (to get D. Rose in the 08 Lottery).

Sixers got a 'chip on the way.

TylerSL
03-07-2011, 07:54 PM
because Bulls fans take immense pride and pleasure in sweeping the Heat and making them cry, that's why.

thats fine, but if u take so much pride in it you could have at least something about the Bulls in your sigs. Like here is a good one

Bulls vs. Heat (Bulls 3-0)

Bulls record 43-18
Heat record 43-20

Who said the Heat were better than the Bulls :shrug:

kjoke
03-07-2011, 07:56 PM
good for the bulls, i just hate these type of predictions, individual stats, hollinger is a beast but when it comes to stats picking a winnner, i think its a huge stretch.

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 07:56 PM
I respect that, but you didnt really answer my question so I will ask again. Why cant you just have a Bulls sig instead of a Heat bash sig?? (The Bosh chill comment is a bash)

I have made fun of past players in sigs and never was questioned. It only seems when I have a sig to do with lebron the question gets asked. no one said anything about my KG sig or varejao sig a year ago and such. Hell, even my lebron sig last year as well never even got mentioned. I just like the sig, I think it's funny. does it really bother you that much?

kjoke
03-07-2011, 07:58 PM
I have made fun of past players in sigs and never was questioned. It only seems when I have a sig to do with lebron the question gets asked. no one said anything about my KG sig or varejao sig a year ago and such. Hell, even my lebron sig last year as well never even got mentioned. I just like the sig, I think it's funny. does it really bother you that much?

it just makes you look like you care more about the Heat and what there players do and say then the bulls. I dont care, but thats the image given

ManRam
03-07-2011, 07:58 PM
D Rose, I don't think anyone takes anything Hollinger says as "proof", however, to 100% discredit everything he does is equally as foolish as treating it as the be-all end-all. His work and metrics are for the most part very telling. Yes, they have flaws...but every single stat does. Like any other stat, it's how you use it to support your argument that is the problem, not the stat itself.

But again, completely writing anything he does off isn't fair.

And call him a "douchbag" who "doesn't know crap"...but I guarantee you he does know a hell of a lot more than any of us here. If that's all the insight you have to provide to this thread, why bother?

And right now, honestly, looks like his formula spit out some solid results. The Bulls look like the best team right now :shrug:, followed by LA and SA. Boston is fading slightly (I think they're worse without Perk and those injuries are hurting them)...and I do think Miami still will be there when all is said and done.

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 07:59 PM
I don't think many people take Hollinger seriously unless it confirms what the believe. Which is the whole problem with statistics. Heavy manipulation to solidify your opinion.

and your right. they use his stats when it suits what they want to prove, but his stats dont mean crap when it goes against what they mean. your right on that, I just think his work over all is a joke.

Gritz
03-07-2011, 08:00 PM
This is the closest Chicago is going to get at winning a championship this season to be honest

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 08:00 PM
it just makes you look like you care more about the Heat and what there players do and say then the bulls. I dont care, but thats the image given

if thats the case, then so be it. I mean this is a sports forum, I come on here to talk sports and give other fan bases a hard time. I don't really take people opinions of me on here seriously cause I really dont know any of you.

RZZZA
03-07-2011, 08:01 PM
D Rose, I don't think anyone takes anything Hollinger says as "proof", however, to 100% discredit everything he does is equally as foolish as treating it as the be-all end-all. His work and metrics are for the most part very telling. Yes, they have flaws...but every single stat does. Like any other stat, it's how you use it to support your argument that is the problem, not the stat itself.

But again, completely writing anything he does off isn't fair.

And call him a "douchbag" who "doesn't know crap"...but I guarantee you he does know a hell of a lot more than any of us here. If that's all the insight you have to provide to this thread, why bother?

And right now, honestly, looks like his formula spit out some solid results. The Bulls look like the best team right now :shrug:, followed by LA and SA. Boston is fading slightly (I think they're worse without Perk and those injuries are hurting them)...and I do think Miami still will be there when all is said and done.

please man, when it comes to predicting the future, he is a douchebag who doesn't know crap. Just like every other analyst who claims to know what will happen.


And right now, honestly, looks like his formula spit out some solid results. The Bulls look like the best team right now

You need a formula to tell you that the Bulls look pretty good? What a waste of teh maths, if I was him I'd be in Vegas ripping off casinos. What good is math, anyway, if you don't use it to steal money.

kjoke
03-07-2011, 08:01 PM
if thats the case, then so be it. I mean this is a sports forum, I come on here to talk sports and give other fan bases a hard time. I don't really take people opinions of me on here seriously cause I really dont know any of you.

thats a cop out answer, the fact is your posting here to get your opinion heard, thus you kinda care what people have to say about you.

TylerSL
03-07-2011, 08:02 PM
I have made fun of past players in sigs and never was questioned. It only seems when I have a sig to do with lebron the question gets asked. no one said anything about my KG sig or varejao sig a year ago and such. Hell, even my lebron sig last year as well never even got mentioned. I just like the sig, I think it's funny. does it really bother you that much?

no it doesnt bother me that bad, I have just seen you with a ton of heat bash sigs and I was just curious so I asked the question, which you did not answer yet again.......... Like the other guy said tho, it just makes you look bad because it makes it seem that you care more about the Heat failing than the Bulls winning.......

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 08:03 PM
D Rose, I don't think anyone takes anything Hollinger says as "proof", however, to 100% discredit everything he does is equally as foolish as treating it as the be-all end-all. His work and metrics are for the most part very telling. Yes, they have flaws...but every single stat does. Like any other stat, it's how you use it to support your argument that is the problem, not the stat itself.

But again, completely writing anything he does off isn't fair.

And call him a "douchbag" who "doesn't know crap"...but I guarantee you he does know a hell of a lot more than any of us here. If that's all the insight you have to provide to this thread, why bother?

And right now, honestly, looks like his formula spit out some solid results. The Bulls look like the best team right now :shrug:, followed by LA and SA. Boston is fading slightly (I think they're worse without Perk and those injuries are hurting them)...and I do think Miami still will be there when all is said and done.

but when a guy admits first hand his stats are for entertainment purposes you really can not take his work seriously. I mean his work is good for a conversation piece I guess, but when was the last time hollinger was right? ESPN we all know are probably the worst when it comes to analyzing and judging talent,and out of all those guys on the staff, Hollinger I think is the worst.

todu82
03-07-2011, 08:04 PM
The Bulls have certainly came on this year but I don't think they're in the uppier tier yet, in the playoffs everything changes but I don't think it'll change enough for Chicago to win the NBA Title.

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 08:05 PM
no it doesnt bother me that bad, I have just seen you with a ton of heat bash sigs and I was just curious so I asked the question, which you did not answer yet again.......... Like the other guy said tho, it just makes you look bad because it makes it seem that you care more about the Heat failing than the Bulls winning.......

I did answer why I have the sig, because I like it and I think it's funny. plain and simple

Hawkeye15
03-07-2011, 08:06 PM
I like a lot of Hollinger's stuff, but have never been the biggest believer in his playoff odd's formula. I do however respect the Bulls as a team more than I did early in the season. Or I agree that they will be as tough of an out as OKC for instance, so they are right on the border of being a true contender.
The equation doesn't factor in that most of the Bulls players have never sniffed much playoff success, and there is a learning process in the playoffs.

John Walls Era
03-07-2011, 08:08 PM
Has hollinger ever been right?

TylerSL
03-07-2011, 08:08 PM
I did answer why I have the sig, because I like it and I think it's funny. plain and simple

exept I didnt ask that question, this is what I asked (3rd time typing it...) Why cant you just have a sig about the Bulls rather than a Heat bashing sig? (I keep asking because I at least want to get some sort of an answer out of you, I havent yet)

kjoke
03-07-2011, 08:09 PM
exept I didnt ask that question, this is what I asked (3rd time typing it...) Why cant you just have a sig about the Bulls rather than a Heat bashing sig? (I keep asking because I at least want to get some sort of an answer out of you, I havent yet)

yeah just leave it alone, dont get this ot

ManRam
03-07-2011, 08:10 PM
please man, when it comes to predicting the future, he is a douchebag who doesn't know crap. Just like every other analyst who claims to know what will happen.



You need a formula to tell you that the Bulls look pretty good? What a waste of teh maths, if I was him I'd be in Vegas ripping off casinos. What good is math, anyway, if you don't use it to steal money.

1. Amazing insight. I don't get why he's employed by ESPN and you aren't ;) Do you care for Bill James or Sabermetrics in baseball? Not that Hollinger is quite that, but he fits the same mold. Regardless of whether or not you like him, his work in the basketball stats world is unparalleled. He really is a great mind. DRating is such a simple concept, yet it took so long for him to come along and come up with. The simple idea of shifting away from per game and per 100 possessions or per X amount of minutes was something he popularized. PER is a flawed stat, sure, but so is every other stat. It has a great amount of telling power. Used on it's own, it's meaning is sometimes questionable. But no scout or executive out there will tell you it isn't a valuable stat.

I don't know why I actually respond to you when all you are doing is calling him names. Dude is a Virginia grad with an extensive statistical background. He's worked for ESPN, SI, NYS, ESPN, the Wall Street Journall...but yeah, he's an idiot and you probably know more than him :rolleyes:

2. No, I don't. But if you actually looked at what his formula is, realized that it was created a long time ago, and realized how spot on it seems to be year in and year out...is that not cool?

I will admit I don't actually think it's the greatest formula just based on what I know about stats, but none the less, I'm not going to throw dirt on his name for coming up with something better than any of us could.

TylerSL
03-07-2011, 08:11 PM
yeah just leave it alone, dont get this ot

yea I know, but I dont understand why he just wouldnt answer a question. He would make a good Republican...

HaX
03-07-2011, 08:11 PM
Man I like D-Rose and the Bulls, but some posters on here make me dislike them, but then others make me like them.

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 08:12 PM
exept I didnt ask that question, this is what I asked (3rd time typing it...) Why cant you just have a sig about the Bulls rather than a Heat bashing sig? (I keep asking because I at least want to get some sort of an answer out of you, I havent yet)

when i find a "bulls" sig i like, i will use it. I like to use sigs no one else has or have seen. i changed my other sig because someone else started using it and i had found this one. no reason really why i dont have a bulls sig right now except i havent found one i really like yet that someone else doesnt have.

RZZZA
03-07-2011, 08:14 PM
1. Amazing insight. I don't get why he's employed by ESPN and you aren't ;) Do you care for Bill James or Sabermetrics in baseball? Not that Hollinger is quite that, but he fits the same mold. Regardless of whether or not you like him, his work in the basketball stats world is unparalleled. He really is a great mind. DRating is such a simple concept, yet it took so long for him to come along and come up with. The simple idea of shifting away from per game and per 100 possessions or per X amount of minutes was something he popularized. PER is a flawed stat, sure, but so is every other stat. It has a great amount of telling power. Used on it's own, it's meaning is sometimes questionable. But no scout or executive out there will tell you it isn't a valuable stat.

I don't know why I actually respond to you when all you are doing is calling him names. Dude is a Virginia grad with an extensive statistical background. He's worked for ESPN, SI, NYS, ESPN, the Wall Street Journall...but yeah, he's an idiot and you probably know more than him :rolleyes:

2. No, I don't. But if you actually looked at what his formula is, realized that it was created a long time ago, and realized how spot on it seems to be year in and year out...is that not cool?

I will admit I don't actually think it's the greatest formula just based on what I know about stats, but none the less, I'm not going to throw dirt on his name for coming up with something better than any of us could.

Jesus, is Hollinger related to you or something? You really sticking up for him.

my only problem is trying to use mathematical formulas to predict the future, I don't think that's really possible in basketball (or sports in general), and (according to him) the Bulls having a 17% chance to win the championship means nothing to me.

TylerSL
03-07-2011, 08:14 PM
when i find a "bulls" sig i like, i will use it. I like to use sigs no one else has or have seen. i changed my other sig because someone else started using it and i had found this one. no reason really why i dont have a bulls sig right now except i havent found one i really like yet that someone else doesnt have.

ok thats enough of a reason for me, I just dont understand why I had to ask you 3 times to get anything out of you...... Not baiting, you'd make a great republican.....

ChI_ShIzzLe
03-07-2011, 08:15 PM
I wonder where Hollinger got his math degree from.

SteveNash
03-07-2011, 08:19 PM
D Rose, I don't think anyone takes anything Hollinger says as "proof", however, to 100% discredit everything he does is equally as foolish as treating it as the be-all end-all. His work and metrics are for the most part very telling. Yes, they have flaws...but every single stat does. Like any other stat, it's how you use it to support your argument that is the problem, not the stat itself.

But again, completely writing anything he does off isn't fair.

And call him a "douchbag" who "doesn't know crap"...but I guarantee you he does know a hell of a lot more than any of us here. If that's all the insight you have to provide to this thread, why bother?

And right now, honestly, looks like his formula spit out some solid results. The Bulls look like the best team right now :shrug:, followed by LA and SA. Boston is fading slightly (I think they're worse without Perk and those injuries are hurting them)...and I do think Miami still will be there when all is said and done.

Hollinger says that PER isn't the end all be all stat, but I've seen him multiple times state that player x is > player y because his PER is higher. End of discussion.

That makes him a douche.

lakers4sho
03-07-2011, 08:21 PM
I like a lot of Hollinger's stuff, but have never been the biggest believer in his playoff odd's formula. I do however respect the Bulls as a team more than I did early in the season. Or I agree that they will be as tough of an out as OKC for instance, so they are right on the border of being a true contender.
The equation doesn't factor in that most of the Bulls players have never sniffed much playoff success, and there is a learning process in the playoffs.

How can you quantify such a thing though? Maybe total playoff games played by all the players in a team?

Minimal
03-07-2011, 08:21 PM
OT. Answer me 1 question.
Why did you create this thread? Answer it honestly.

chitownbears89
03-07-2011, 08:22 PM
Jesus, is Hollinger related to you or something? You really sticking up for him.

my only problem is trying to use mathematical formulas to predict the future, I don't think that's really possible in basketball (or sports in general), and (according to him) the Bulls having a 17% chance to win the championship means nothing to me.

Using mathematics to predict the future is popular, but flawed. The missing variable is time. Time doesn't repeat, that being said we can get a pretty good estimate. I haven't at how he derives these numbers but im sure its not perfect. But I'm pretty sure its close.

Slimsim
03-07-2011, 08:22 PM
Bobcats in the worse position. Probably won't make the playoffs and won't win the lottery

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 08:23 PM
ok thats enough of a reason for me, I just dont understand why I had to ask you 3 times to get anything out of you...... Not baiting, you'd make a great republican.....

it's cool. I have a problem with no reading the whole post sometimes. I just skim it real quick. so thats my bad and no offense taken. it was my mistake.

tcav701
03-07-2011, 08:23 PM
Hollinger is so dumb that people actually think he is brilliant.

the ONLY reason he has a job is because his formulas create controversy and hits on the ESPN website. His predictions are about as good as Rondo's free throws.

BcEuAbRsS
03-07-2011, 08:24 PM
I wonder where Hollinger got his math degree from.

He totally looks like a cradboards cut-out in that sig video :speechless:

RZZZA
03-07-2011, 08:25 PM
Using mathematics to predict the future is popular, but flawed. The missing variable is time. Time doesn't repeat, that being said we can get a pretty good estimate. I haven't at how he derives these numbers but im sure its not perfect. But I'm pretty sure its close.

maybe someone can answer, what exactly is the point of stating that such and such team has 17% chance of winning, another team has 10% chance winning, another team has .01% chance winning...etc?

Anything that happens proves him right, because even if the bobcats win the championship, he can say "well my formula had them at .01%, so its improbable but it happened, so I'm still right."

it's useless, I really don't see a point behind it.

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 08:26 PM
Hollinger says that PER isn't the end all be all stat, but I've seen him multiple times state that player x is > player y because his PER is higher. End of discussion.

That makes him a douche.

you on a roll today mr. nash. and yes i have seen him do that too and as i stated before, hollinger when he came out with the PER and his other statistics said these are for only entertainment purposes and now stands by them. I really cant take a man who says something like that seriously and has no proof really his formulas have worked in the past

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 08:31 PM
OT. Answer me 1 question.
Why did you create this thread? Answer it honestly.

3 reasons.....

1. I was surprised by what I had seen when I saw this.

2. I thought it would make a good conversation piece

3. and to see if others agreed with hollinger since a lot of people on here take his work so seriously.

by you asking me this question, I'm guessing your thinking I created this thread to brag about the bulls huh? not even the case cause to be dead honest, I don't agree with what he said.

D1JM
03-07-2011, 08:38 PM
whats nice about hollingers power rankings and all that good stuff is that it's not biased. it's a robot with no feelings doing math. it's a statical analyst, thats it.

Minimal
03-07-2011, 08:39 PM
3 reasons.....

1. I was surprised by what I had seen when I saw this.

2. I thought it would make a good conversation piece

3. and to see if others agreed with hollinger since a lot of people on here take his work so seriously.

by you asking me this question, I'm guessing your thinking I created this thread to brag about the bulls huh? not even the case cause to be dead honest, I don't agree with what he said.
You forgot the last one and the most important one - to praise your team.
And don't even try to deny that or you will be lying to yourself.

I like maths myself and his formula is based completely on regular season games, which proves nothing.
So did you create this thread so the people could **** about Hollinger?

John Walls Era
03-07-2011, 08:40 PM
I'll do 1 better than Hollinger. I say Pistons have 0 chance of making the playoffs.

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 08:42 PM
You forgot the last one and the most important one - to praise your team.
And don't even try to deny that or you will be lying to yourself.

whats your problem seriously? dead honest truth I did not create this to brag or praise the bulls. How can I when I don't even agree with what hollinger said?

RZZZA
03-07-2011, 08:43 PM
is the media on the Bulls band wagon now? Are we officially a band wagon?

God, I hope not.

Slimsim
03-07-2011, 08:44 PM
0.4% i'll take it

Supreme LA
03-07-2011, 08:44 PM
While I don't think the Bulls are the favorites to win it all, I do believe now that they have just as great a shot as Boston does to make it to the Finals. The Bulls have clearly shown they can beat Miami and in a 7-game series, I have to give the Bulls the edge at this point.

As for the C's, the Bulls actually matchup with them quite well because they never really had an answer for Rose and Noah. Noah will be the key in that series as to how well he rebounds and defends and I definitely see that coming down to a 7-game series, with Rose ultimately closing games out.

Still, against the Lakers at this point I don't see any team that can beat them even the Bulls. If Bynum and Gasol are playing the way they can down low, it's almost impossible to beat the Lakers 4 out of 7 games.

SteveNash
03-07-2011, 08:45 PM
Hollinger is so dumb that people actually think he is brilliant.

the ONLY reason he has a job is because his formulas create controversy and hits on the ESPN website. His predictions are about as good as Rondo's free throws.

If Hollinger was as accurate as Rondo is at the line, he would be making a killing in Vegas.

Remember this is the guy whose computers told him a sophomore Chuck Hayes would be better than Dwight Howard.

Supreme LA
03-07-2011, 08:48 PM
You forgot the last one and the most important one - to praise your team.
And don't even try to deny that or you will be lying to yourself.

I like maths myself and his formula is based completely on regular season games, which proves nothing.
So did you create this thread so the people could **** about Hollinger?

You Miami fans are douches, seriously. The guy actually created a good thread for people to debate over and ofcourse he has interest considering it is the team that he roots for. It's relevant and that in no way should suggest to you that he is looking for praise for his team and the only reason you feel that way is because you're jealous at this point.

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 08:49 PM
If Hollinger was as accurate as Rondo is at the line, he would be making a killing in Vegas.

Remember this is the guy whose computers told him a sophomore Chuck Hayes would be better than Dwight Howard.

:laugh2: I so forgot about that. I forget who on here at the moment, but someone was tryna tell me on psd that gm's use hollinger's draft formulas but couldnt provide no proof that they do. I doubt anyone respectable agrees with hollinger. the only people that do work for ESPN and even some of them even dont even try and defend hollinger when people are bashing him.

JNA17
03-07-2011, 08:51 PM
beside Chronz, does anybody really care about what Hollinger says?

Minimal
03-07-2011, 08:55 PM
You Miami fans are douches, seriously. The guy actually created a good thread for people to debate over and ofcourse he has interest considering it is the team that he roots for. It's relevant and that in no way should suggest to you that he is looking for praise for his team and the only reason you feel that way is because you're jealous at this point.
There is completely no point in this thread. I think we all know that most of Hollinger formulas prove nothing. There is nothing to debate here. So why create this thread? Spank the dead horse?

d00d
03-07-2011, 08:57 PM
meh

best sig I have ever seen. that picture speaks more than a 1,000 words.

look at Jordan's face, so young, so brash, so confident. I love that pic

b0nk
03-07-2011, 08:59 PM
too bad for bulls
if hollinger picks you then you ain't winning it

JNA17
03-07-2011, 09:01 PM
too bad for bulls
if hollinger picks you then you ain't winning it

It's a good thing Hollinger never picks the lakers or kobe winning anything ever since the sport of basketball began :laugh:

210Don
03-07-2011, 09:03 PM
yay were second

D1JM
03-07-2011, 09:10 PM
There is completely no point in this thread. I think we all know that most of Hollinger formulas prove nothing. There is nothing to debate here. So why create this thread? Spank the dead horse?

why even bother coming into the thread? just stay in your forum or dont come in and start trouble

DODGERS&LAKERS
03-07-2011, 09:18 PM
The problem with a lot of the stats and playoff predictions made by stats, are that they put so much weight on the regular season outcomes and numbers. Every fan of the NBA knows that the players give 100% effort, about 10% of the time. So making judgments and assumptions off criteria that is misleading, will bring about misguided opinions.

Everyone knows the Celtics stopped playing hard last year. But how did that end up? Everyone knows the Lakers waited till this week to start the regular season. The problem with Holingers criteria for coming to this conclusion, is that he thinks the Lakers losing by 20 points to the Grizzlies and Bobcats, or just losing to the Cavs, actually have any bearing on what will happen in the playoffs.

ManRam
03-07-2011, 09:24 PM
NO ONE IS SAYING HE IS PROVING ANYTHING.

Why do people keep using this word "prove"? Where did this word come from? Why is it being brought up? I swear if I see it one more time I'm going to lose it :laugh:

You act like ESPN is saying they've found a crystal ball that sees the future. Relax. It's a formula that does its best to PREDICT how the playoffs would shape out if they started today. Nothing more, nothing less. A simple prediction. It's like a power ranking, but based on a formula that doesn't change. You guys don't use the word "proof" or "prove" when power rankings are thrown around, do you. There is no reason to treat this any differently, and ESPN isn't trying to tell you to.

You guys are being way too sensitive, and digging way too deep into this.

godolphins
03-07-2011, 09:25 PM
:laugh:

bedford1829
03-07-2011, 09:33 PM
I believe in the bulls coming out of the East. D.Rose is everything that LBJ isn't in my eyes.

Rose is focused, intense, competitive, and has that killer instinct. Rose is a perfect fit for Chicago because he has become the closest thing next to Kobe in matching Jordan's competitiveness and desire to win.

I see Rose winning a title sooner and winning more over all titles than LBJ.

However, this season is not the season as Kobe and Phil got one more run in the tank.

Sadds The Gr8
03-07-2011, 09:36 PM
i still don't think they can beat Boston or the Cheat (as badly as i want the Cheat to lose) in a series.

kswissdaf
03-07-2011, 09:45 PM
Bulls fans are practically jizzing in their pants today

Mane
03-07-2011, 09:49 PM
NO ONE IS SAYING HE IS PROVING ANYTHING.

Why do people keep using this word "prove"? Where did this word come from? Why is it being brought up? I swear if I see it one more time I'm going to lose it :laugh:

You act like ESPN is saying they've found a crystal ball that sees the future. Relax. It's a formula that does its best to PREDICT how the playoffs would shape out if they started today. Nothing more, nothing less. A simple prediction. It's like a power ranking, but based on a formula that doesn't change. You guys don't use the word "proof" or "prove" when power rankings are thrown around, do you. There is no reason to treat this any differently, and ESPN isn't trying to tell you to.

You guys are being way too sensitive, and digging way too deep into this.

wait you're saying ESPN found a crystal ball? that's crazy manram. you're crazy.

Flash3
03-07-2011, 09:53 PM
Mane is the best fan on this site.

Sixerlover
03-07-2011, 10:08 PM
1.7% is where it's at... so congrats to the 2011 NBA champions, the 76ers.

http://somewhatmanlynerd.com/gifs/dumbtheresachance.gif

Swashcuff
03-07-2011, 10:10 PM
wait you're saying ESPN found a crystal ball? that's crazy manram. you're crazy.

You are being sarcastic right?

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 10:13 PM
and yet people still are sticking up for hollinger......SMH.....

marlinsfan24
03-07-2011, 10:14 PM
Hollinger's chances of Heat winning championship: 10.7%
PSD's chance of Heat winning championship: -100%

:)

Congrats to the Bulls. Means nothing, especially coming from Hollinger, but you guys are finally getting some of the love you guys deserve.

Mane
03-07-2011, 10:16 PM
You are being sarcastic right?

excuse me? idk what that is.

ManRam
03-07-2011, 10:23 PM
and yet people still are sticking up for hollinger......SMH.....

So this guy is on a level of stupid that not a single person in the world should say a single nice thing about him? He's that dumb?

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 10:26 PM
So this guy is on a level of stupid that not a single person in the world should say a single nice thing about him? He's that dumb?

I haven't found one thing he has said to be right. I mean prove me wrong..... I would love someone to show me something so i can read a article he wrote and take it some what seriously. I really don't see whats the difference between him and someone who writes a blog. I dont think he is credible.

Sixerlover
03-07-2011, 10:28 PM
I haven't found one thing he has said to be right. I mean prove me wrong..... I would love someone to show me something so i can read a article he wrote and take it some what seriously.

I mean, PER is a pretty accurate judgment of a player. And it's widely accepted as not only usable, but reliable too.

ManRam
03-07-2011, 10:32 PM
I haven't found one thing he has said to be right. I mean prove me wrong..... I would love someone to show me something so i can read a article he wrote and take it some what seriously. I really don't see whats the difference between him and someone who writes a blog. I dont think he is credible.


Update from earlier: Jared Jeffries had made it an even 100 minutes as a Knick without scoring a basket.

Per his twitter. Just said it. Is that wrong?

Someone who writes a blog hasn't come up with DRtg. Someone who writes a blog hasn't come up with a stat that is as telling as PER. I know you hate those stats, but the fact of the matter is, they are more telling than pretty much anything you, me, or most anyone else can come up with.


You walk a really tight line with over-exaggerating things. "Haven't found one thing" is something you shouldn't be saying. You really do this a lot. There is a difference between disagreeing with how telling his stats are, and saying that everything he does is flat out wrong. You need to learn that.

hugepatsfan
03-07-2011, 10:32 PM
This is a reasonable prediction. Do I agree? No. But no stat or prediction is beyond reproach. I'm curious as to what his prediction method is. Maybe he is only using 1 stat (PER). You can never only use 1 stat.

drobe86
03-07-2011, 10:38 PM
You gotta give credit where credit is due... The bulls are playing phenomenal bball.... That being said, in a 7 game series I have a hard time seeing them beating Boston, Orlando, or even the Heat. Its the NBA and anybody can be beat on given night and the Bulls are clearly trending upward. But when the games count forreal I don't think they have the depth.....

ManRam
03-07-2011, 10:45 PM
D Rose, what does he say that is really "wrong". A lot of his stuff is just statistical. Formulas like these aren't meant to be "right". If the Bulls don't win it all, he's not "wrong". If LeBron James has the highest PER and you don't think he's the best player, he isn't "wrong".

I guess that's what I'm confused about. I'd like to have a good conversation with you about this, so in order to start, I'd like to know some concrete things that you think he's been flat out wrong about...and I'm not talking things like how Westbrook has a higher PER than Rose. Those aren't things that he's "wrong" about.

ManRam
03-07-2011, 10:52 PM
This is a reasonable prediction. Do I agree? No. But no stat or prediction is beyond reproach. I'm curious as to what his prediction method is. Maybe he is only using 1 stat (PER). You can never only use 1 stat.

Well, PER is just an individual player stat, so obviously it isn't what is used.

Here's his explanation. It's pretty cool actually...something that obviously any random person couldn't do.


Yep, it's back.

Because most teams have played at least 10 games and we can formulate at least some idea of how the league's teams stand in relation to one another, it's once again time to unveil the Hollinger playoff odds.

The idea is to predict what a team's odds are of making the playoffs, winning the division, making the Finals, etc., by simulating all the remaining games in the NBA season. We have a computer at ESPN headquarters in Bristol, Conn., that automatically plays out the rest of the season every night -- not once, but 5,000 times. And we can see from those 5,000 trials how many times a certain outcome resulted, then assign a probability from it. For example, if the Blazers make the playoffs in 2,500 of our trials, we say their odds of making the playoffs are 2,500 divided by 5,000, or 50 percent.

This tool doesn't just play out the regular season, though -- it plays out the postseason with seedings and even runs the draft lottery. As a result, we can get an idea of the probability of all sorts of outcomes; the most prominent is the team's median record from the 5,000 trials. As a reminder, this tool is completely, 100 percent automated, so my obvious, long-standing bias against your favorite team is not a factor here.

As always, the output of a product is only as good as its input, so let's explain a little about how this is derived. The computer starts with the day's Hollinger power rankings. Then, in each of the 5,000 times it replays the season, it makes a random adjustment up or down to allow for the possibility that a team will play better or worse than it has done thus far. (I call this the Anti-Dennis Green Postulate; i.e., maybe they aren't who we thought they were.)

Additionally, the results regress to the mean. This is more important early in the season, and what it essentially means is that even though a team might start 10-0, it's not necessarily bound to go 82-0. The effect of this will reduce sharply after the first quarter of the season or so, but in the early going of most seasons, it's necessary to prevent us from projecting 77-win seasons and the like.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=playoffpredictor-081119

Here's how his power rankings are devised.


By now, you might have noticed our daily version of power rankings is back up on ESPN.com's NBA page.

These rankings are based on a formula I devised, and they are updated every day, automatically.

I created these rankings to give a quick assessment of all 30 teams so far in the season, since sometimes the standings can be misleading in this department.

Here is some background to help you as you look through the rankings each day.

Scoring margin
One of my goals was to create a system that told us more about a team's quality than the standings do.

So instead of winning percentage, these rankings use points scored and points allowed, which are better indicators of a team's quality than wins and losses.

This might not sound right at first, but studies have shown scoring margin to be a better predictor of future success than a team's win-loss record. Thus, scoring margin is a more accurate sign of a team's quality.

That explains why, for instance, four seasons ago the Spurs ranked ahead of the Mavericks even though they had won nine fewer games -- San Antonio's scoring margin was superior. That ultimately proved to be prophetic, as Dallas lost in the first round of the playoffs while the Spurs won the championship.

Strength of schedule
Yes, this matters in the NBA, too. It is not as profound in the pro game as in the college game, because the 30 NBA teams are more evenly matched, but it still affects a team's results.

This comes into play mainly in the early part of the season, when there can be wide disparities in the quality of competition, but even at the end of the season, there will be differences among teams -- particularly when one conference is far better than the other.

Recent performance
Another key variable in the formula is recent performance, which I included for two reasons.

First, it stands to reason that more recent games are more valid indicators of how strong a team is currently.

Second, I wanted these rankings to follow the model of Marc Stein's "human" power rankings, on the site each Monday, in which a team's recent play is a huge factor.

To accomplish this, I weigh a team's full-season results by two-thirds and its most recent games by another one-third, so the overall ranking gives greater weight to recent games.

You're probably wondering at this point what I mean by "recent." It varies depending on where we are in the season.

For the first 40 games of the season, it means a team's past 10 games.

From that point forward, however, it means the most recent 25 percent of a team's schedule. The net result is that, after the first 40 games, a team's most recent 25 percent of its schedule will account for 40 percent of its ranking.

Home and road
The final variable here is home and road games.

In each game, a team's scoring margin is adjusted by the 3.5-point advantage we (and by "we," I mean the Vegas books, of course) expect the home team to have in a game between otherwise equal opponents.

This can have a large effect at certain points in the season for some teams, as their home and road numbers can get way out of line. This is particularly true for the two "circus/rodeo" teams -- Chicago and San Antonio -- who take at least one extended road trip every season because their arenas are being used for special events and thus end up with a big home-road disparity.

Caveats
Since this is an entirely automated ranking, you'll notice certain "human" factors missing.

It doesn't know which players are about to come back from injury or which teams have been playing without their best players for the past 10 games.

Along the same lines, it doesn't take into account injuries, trades, controversial calls or any other variables -- just the scores, please.

Nonetheless, it can be very useful because it allows us to see what the landscape looks like when we remove our usual filters.

We hope you enjoy our daily power rankings.

HOLLINGER'S FORMULA
RATING = (((SOS-0.5)/0.037)*0.67) + (((SOSL10-0.5)/0.037)*0.33) + 100 + (0.67*(MARG+(((ROAD-HOME)*3.5)/(GAMES))) + (0.33*(MARGL10+(((ROAD10-HOME10)*3.5)/(10)))))

SOS = Season win/loss percentage of team's opponents, expressed as a decimal (e.g., .500)

SOSL10 = Season win/loss percentage of team's last 10 opponents, expressed as a decimal (e.g., .500)

MARG = Team's average scoring margin

MARGL10 = Team's average scoring margin over the last 10 games

HOME = Team's home games

HOMEL10 = Team's home games over the last 10 games

ROAD = Team's road games

ROADL10 = Team's road games over the last 10 games

GAMES = Team's total games

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Rankings-Intro


Again, I'd be absolutely stunned if any user here could come up with a formula as fool proof as this. Does it work all the time? Of course not. Does it have flaws? Of course? Is it pretty awesome and does it incorporate a lot of important metrics? For sure.


Again, I think it's pretty cool...but again, not worth digging too deep into. Fun, but not much more than that. The game is played on the court, not a computer. But this is pretty advanced stuff.

Chronz
03-07-2011, 10:54 PM
What a surprise another Hollinger bash thread, I almost feel compelled to read through 7 pages but considering the source Ill pass unless provoked. Anyone?

JJ_JKidd
03-07-2011, 10:57 PM
As a Bulls fan, I even have to disagree with this. So many of you take Hollingers mathematics so seriously. so for the ones that do, do you agree with this? I say the Lakers are still the favorites like I have been saying for a while now.

1.Bulls: Finals Odds: 32.6% Champ: 17.9%
2. Spurs: Finals Odds: 29.8 Champ 17.8%
3. Lakers: Finals Odds: 27.9% Champ 15.4%
4. Boston: Final Odds: 23.3% Champ 11.3%
5. Miami: Finals Odds 21.2% Champ 10.6%

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds

Were injuries factored into his formula? Off course not, because you cannot predict it. Exactly, why this BS that Hollinger statistical fool is saying is purely crap.

Bottomline: A lot of factors affect a team's chance to get into the Finals, or win a Championship for that matter that SCIENCE cannot accurately MEASURE.

ManRam
03-07-2011, 11:02 PM
What a surprise another Hollinger bash thread, I almost feel compelled to read through 7 pages but considering the source Ill pass unless provoked. Anyone?

Don't bother. Same old, same old. According to the source...Hollinger has not once in his life been right about anything.

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 11:03 PM
Per his twitter. Just said it. Is that wrong?

Someone who writes a blog hasn't come up with DRtg. Someone who writes a blog hasn't come up with a stat that is as telling as PER. I know you hate those stats, but the fact of the matter is, they are more telling than pretty much anything you, me, or most anyone else can come up with.


You walk a really tight line with over-exaggerating things. "Haven't found one thing" is something you shouldn't be saying. You really do this a lot. There is a difference between disagreeing with how telling his stats are, and saying that everything he does is flat out wrong. You need to learn that.


D Rose, what does he say that is really "wrong". A lot of his stuff is just statistical. Formulas like these aren't meant to be "right". If the Bulls don't win it all, he's not "wrong". If LeBron James has the highest PER and you don't think he's the best player, he isn't "wrong".

I guess that's what I'm confused about. I'd like to have a good conversation with you about this, so in order to start, I'd like to know some concrete things that you think he's been flat out wrong about...and I'm not talking things like how Westbrook has a higher PER than Rose. Those aren't things that he's "wrong" about.

what does the jared jefferies thing prove? that he can read a stat sheet? you do know he now has bought into a idea and formula he once called "for entertainment purposes only". when he first said his formula was for entertainment purposes, no one should of taken it seriously after that. that does not seem a little odd to you? have you even seen the all time top 50 career PER list? he uses that formula to judge his talent right? who he thinks is the better player. tell me why on that list, only about half of those guys are in the hall of fame and it leaves off some real good hall of famers? for example off the top of my head, according to his rankings glenn robinson had a higher PER then someone like Scottie Pippen. I mean seriously? PER does not include the intangibles that made michael jordan, michael jordan, the drive, the leadership, the court vision, the competitiveness and such. there are so many variables it does not include. I mean who outside ESPN takes Hollinger seriously and like i said, half the time most of his own colleagues cant even defend him. again, no one respectable uses his stats. his formulas has never predicted a RIGHT outcome and as you said, his formula is flawed.

Anilyzer
03-07-2011, 11:05 PM
As a Bulls fan, I even have to disagree with this. So many of you take Hollingers mathematics so seriously. so for the ones that do, do you agree with this? I say the Lakers are still the favorites like I have been saying for a while now.

1.Bulls: Finals Odds: 32.6% Champ: 17.9%
2. Spurs: Finals Odds: 29.8 Champ 17.8%
3. Lakers: Finals Odds: 27.9% Champ 15.4%
4. Boston: Final Odds: 23.3% Champ 11.3%
5. Miami: Finals Odds 21.2% Champ 10.6%

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds

LoL anybody could pull some numbers like that out of their *** if you think about it.

*hmmmmmmm* what are the top five contending teams? *hmmmmmmm*
divide up the percentages accordingly.

you can easily say the Bull have a "32%" chance of reaching the Finals, because you know that most of the time they won't anyways, so you are never wrong.

Like for instance, instead of those numbers what if we just say this:

1.Bulls: Finals Odds: 25% Champ: 15%
2. Spurs: Finals Odds: 25% Champ: 15%
3. Lakers: Finals Odds: 25% Champ: 15%
4. Boston: Final Odds: 25% Champ: 15%
5. Miami: Finals Odds: 25% Champ: 15%

Right? LoL. How can that be any farther off than Hollinger's assessment, really?

With all the estimations and assumptions he has to make, how can anyone POSSIBLY say that the Chicago Bulls have a 2.5% higher chance than the Lakers of winning the title?

So in other words, he's saying that if we ran the 2011 playoffs 1,000 times, the Bulls would win 179 times and the Lakers would win 154 times...

And these numbers are already outdated after watching the Lakers toy with the Spurs yesterday. I mean I guess he's basing it on a higher estimated prob that Bulls win the East, which might have some merit to it, but A. it seems like splitting hairs and B. Boston, Orlando and Miami's ability to beat the Bulls in a series HAS to be factored in strongly. Saying that the Bull's are 32% to beat BOTH Boston and Miami/Orlando is basically saying that the Bulls are 57%+ to beat Boston, Miami or Orlando, and lose nothing in playing two tough series back to back against them.

Anilyzer
03-07-2011, 11:08 PM
I just don't think that if Chicago played Boston, Miami or Orlando tomorrow they'd be legit 3:2 favorites. So how can he say Chicago is 32% to come out of the East? He's forgetting the fact that Chicago is not even the best team in the East right now.

ManRam
03-07-2011, 11:13 PM
what does the jared jefferies thing prove? that he can read a stat sheet? you do know he now has bought into a idea and formula he once called "for entertainment purposes only". when he first said his formula was for entertainment purposes, no one should of taken it seriously after that. that does not seem a little odd to you? have you even seen the all time top 50 career PER list? he uses that formula to judge his talent right? who he thinks is the better player. tell me why on that list, only about half of those guys are in the hall of fame and it leaves off some real good hall of famers? for example off the top of my head, according to his rankings glenn robinson had a higher PER then someone like Scottie Pippen. I mean seriously? PER does not include the intangibles that made michael jordan, michael jordan, the drive, the leadership, the court vision, the competitiveness and such. there are so many variables it does not include. I mean who outside ESPN takes Hollinger seriously and like i said, half the time most of his own colleagues cant even defend him. again, no one respectable uses his stats. his formulas has never predicted a RIGHT outcome and as you said, his formula is flawed.

~You said "I haven't found one thing he has said to be right." And I showed you something he said that was right. I was just trying to point out the flaws in how you argue...which you again demonstrate here:

"half the time most of his own colleagues cant even defend him"

A) That's a blanket statement that you can't back up and know isn't true
B) You use "arguments" like that to defend your arguments, that's why I get frustrated.


~What do you mean "predict a right outcome"?

~What stat does include drive, leadership, court vision, etc.? Do you look at any stats? I don't get what you're getting at. With your logic, there isn't a single stat that is telling...right? No stat can incorporate that, and Hollinger never will ever try to tell you he is trying to do that. No one using PER as an argument will tell you that PER does that.

I don't get what you are getting at with that whole argument. That's so off-base it's crazy. It's like you have no idea what people use PER to argue. Should stats all together be abandoned???

~Pippen had a higher PER than Glenn.


Please don't dodge any of my points. I'd like to finally have this discussion.

~Show me the quote about entertainment purposes.

RipCity32
03-07-2011, 11:14 PM
I think Bulls have the best chance, they have the best overall team in my opinion and Derrick Rose is becoming one of the most valuable players

ManRam
03-07-2011, 11:15 PM
LoL anybody could pull some numbers like that out of their *** if you think about it.

*hmmmmmmm* what are the top five contending teams? *hmmmmmmm*
divide up the percentages accordingly.

you can easily say the Bull have a "32%" chance of reaching the Finals, because you know that most of the time they won't anyways, so you are never wrong.

Like for instance, instead of those numbers what if we just say this:

1.Bulls: Finals Odds: 25% Champ: 15%
2. Spurs: Finals Odds: 25% Champ: 15%
3. Lakers: Finals Odds: 25% Champ: 15%
4. Boston: Final Odds: 25% Champ: 15%
5. Miami: Finals Odds: 25% Champ: 15%

Right? LoL. How can that be any farther off than Hollinger's assessment, really?

With all the estimations and assumptions he has to make, how can anyone POSSIBLY say that the Chicago Bulls have a 2.5% higher chance than the Lakers of winning the title?

So in other words, he's saying that if we ran the 2011 playoffs 1,000 times, the Bulls would win 179 times and the Lakers would win 154 times...

And these numbers are already outdated after watching the Lakers toy with the Spurs yesterday. I mean I guess he's basing it on a higher estimated prob that Bulls win the East, which might have some merit to it, but A. it seems like splitting hairs and B. Boston, Orlando and Miami's ability to beat the Bulls in a series HAS to be factored in strongly. Saying that the Bull's are 32% to beat BOTH Boston and Miami/Orlando is basically saying that the Bulls are 57%+ to beat Boston, Miami or Orlando, and lose nothing in playing two tough series back to back against them.

:laugh:

Except he didn't pull them out of his ***. Did you read how he gets them. It's an extremely complex and well thought out process. Of course anyone could pull those numbers out of their ***. That's why those are those guys, and he is John Hollinger and employed by ESPN. I don't get why that's hard to understand. You guys think he's just some bafoon they found on the street.


The flaw is that these predictions are based on the regular season results to date, but that's an obvious flaw, and that's what he's basing it on. There's nothing else to base it on. There's no other way to statistically do it. So while it's a flaw, it's the least flawed flaw...if that makes sense.

Anilyzer
03-07-2011, 11:17 PM
Well, PER is just an individual player stat, so obviously it isn't what is used.

Here's his explanation. It's pretty cool actually...something that obviously any random person couldn't do.



http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=playoffpredictor-081119

Here's how his power rankings are devised.



http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Rankings-Intro


Again, I'd be absolutely stunned if any user here could come up with a formula as fool proof as this. Does it work all the time? Of course not. Does it have flaws? Of course? Is it pretty awesome and does it incorporate a lot of important metrics? For sure.


Again, I think it's pretty cool...but again, not worth digging too deep into. Fun, but not much more than that. The game is played on the court, not a computer. But this is pretty advanced stuff.

here's a hint when you play around with formulas like that: look at the "weightings" that are applied.

Look at the formula and where you see something like (x * ((y + z) * .35)

it is always the .35 that is where the artistry comes in. That's where you're saying "hmmmmmmmmmm, ok, how about 35%, let's try that"

your trying to weight it based on various factors but that is always ultimately subjective. just fyi. But I agree it's not bad, although I have no idea how he comes up with those weightings in his formula.

Chronz
03-07-2011, 11:21 PM
~Show me the quote about entertainment purposes.

LMFAO is he still saying that? Id LOVE to see this one

Anilyzer
03-07-2011, 11:23 PM
:laugh:

Except he didn't pull them out of his ***. Did you read how he gets them. It's an extremely complex and well thought out process. Of course anyone could pull those numbers out of their ***. That's why those are those guys, and he is John Hollinger and employed by ESPN. I don't get why that's hard to understand. You guys think he's just some bafoon they found on the street.


The flaw is that these predictions are based on the regular season results to date, but that's an obvious flaw, and that's what he's basing it on. There's nothing else to base it on. There's no other way to statistically do it. So while it's a flaw, it's the least flawed flaw...if that makes sense.

Right, ok, but you see what I'm saying.

The difference between me just saying the top 3 teams in the East are all 25% to win the East, and Hollinger saying that no, the Bulls are 32% and the Celtics 24%, or whatever, is very very marginal. Like, what if I say my odds of having sex tonight are 40%... but then I decide my odds are actually 41%. The difference in expectation of my having sex is quite marginal and is actually just theoretical.

Actually the more I think about it, his formula might be off, because I don't think anybody would say Chicago is a 3:2 favorite over all of the top East teams right now.

drobe86
03-07-2011, 11:23 PM
I think Bulls have the best chance, they have the best overall team in my opinion and Derrick Rose is becoming one of the most valuable players

Haha.... The bulls arent winning a title this season. They're a really good team, but thats comical..

ManRam
03-07-2011, 11:25 PM
here's a hint when you play around with formulas like that: look at the "weightings" that are applied.

Look at the formula and where you see something like (x * ((y + z) * .35)

it is always the .35 that is where the artistry comes in. That's where you're saying "hmmmmmmmmmm, ok, how about 35%, let's try that"

your trying to weight it based on various factors but that is always ultimately subjective. just fyi. But I agree it's not bad, although I have no idea how he comes up with those weightings in his formula.

I don't know either, but I know he has some extensive background in stat in college, and I know he went to a damn good school. I took three stats classes in college (they were all medical related, so a little different) and I could begin to explain slightly, but for the most part, it doesn't make 100% sense to me to the point I can articulate it in layman's terms. I can tell thatn he's not pulling .35 out of his *** though. Again, he's really not dumb, and if you think that, you're just being naive. These stat geeks are just that...geeks: really smart people. There are growing pains that every person in the forefront of his art goes through, and Hollinger has his, but they don't outweigh the positive, not even close.

ManRam
03-07-2011, 11:32 PM
Actually the more I think about it, his formula might be off, because I don't think anybody would say Chicago is a 3:2 favorite over all of the top East teams right now.

They are 3:2 favorites among EC teams to win it, which I agree looks high. But you know what, right now, I don't think it's too crazy. I can see how a purely statistical thing could see that. The Heat can't beat a winning team, the Bulls just beat the Heat and Magic (Hollinger favors recent play), Miami has lost 4 in a row.

They are the hottest team in the East. Miami isn't a championship contender in most people's eyes. Boston probably is the only other true contender it other people's. So two true contenders. Not too crazy for them to be 3:2.

A human wouldn't have it like that, but that's the thing...it isn't a human, and sometimes it's cool to have a different perspective. This is a formula mixed in with thousands of simulations...

gauth25
03-07-2011, 11:33 PM
Sorry but as of right now no one is going to beat the Lakers. If the Celtics get healthy, they won't be beaten to win the east.

RipCity32
03-07-2011, 11:33 PM
Haha.... The bulls arent winning a title this season. They're a really good team, but thats comical..

Are you kidding me they have just as good of a shot as the lakers or spurs,you make it sound like its the cavs are something.

SteBO
03-07-2011, 11:38 PM
Are you kidding me they have just as good of a shot as the lakers or spurs,you make it sound like its the cavs are something.
Meh. I've been a Bulls apologist for a while, but this year, I don't think so. They have a chance as many other teams do, but it's very unlikely this year.

Draco
03-07-2011, 11:40 PM
Haha.... The bulls arent winning a title this season. They're a really good team, but thats comical..

jmo.. i think they have a better chance than the Mavs.. just sayin.

bulldog312
03-07-2011, 11:41 PM
Haha.... The bulls arent winning a title this season. They're a really good team, but thats comical..

Lol, maybe they won't, but you are just a hater if you think they have no chance. I'd give Boston a slight edge because they have playoff experience together as a team, but I think Chicago is a very close 2nd. The Heat have great players, but they have to show me they can beat elite teams before I make them favorites over either Chicago or Boston.

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 11:49 PM
~You said "I haven't found one thing he has said to be right." And I showed you something he said that was right. I was just trying to point out the flaws in how you argue...which you again demonstrate here:

"half the time most of his own colleagues cant even defend him"

A) That's a blanket statement that you can't back up and know isn't true
B) You use "arguments" like that to defend your arguments, that's why I get frustrated.


~What do you mean "predict a right outcome"?

~What stat does include drive, leadership, court vision, etc.? Do you look at any stats? I don't get what you're getting at. With your logic, there isn't a single stat that is telling...right? No stat can incorporate that, and Hollinger never will ever try to tell you he is trying to do that. No one using PER as an argument will tell you that PER does that.

I don't get what you are getting at with that whole argument. That's so off-base it's crazy. It's like you have no idea what people use PER to argue. Should stats all together be abandoned???

~Pippen had a higher PER than Glenn.


Please don't dodge any of my points. I'd like to finally have this discussion.

~Show me the quote about entertainment purposes.

blanked arguments? you should really go on DDL sometimes or read some of the chats from bucher. its not a blanket statement, thats actually something I have seen quite a bit on that site. again, maybe im just not getting it, but what did that jefferies post have anything to do with how good hollinger is at judging talent or predicting out comes? I mean honestly man, who uses PER? I'm not against all stats, but you can judge talent by looking at the basic stats, those stats matter more then PER does. Besides, I think should only count for about 30-50 percent when judging a player on whos more talented. like i said, intangibles and success are also big factors. stats are real nice and all, but they only tell a part of the picture. like for the derrick rose argument, you can't use PER to judge on why he is MVP or not. PER doesn't count for the fact that Rose was with out noah for 30 games and boozer for another 20 and they have the second best record in the East. I mean if you wanna go by stats, then how come miami has the 6th best record in the NBA, but hollinger has them 5th most likely to win the whole thing or the bulls as first to win the whole? Hollinger even admits he doesnt watch as much basketball as he would like. I mean you and I probably watch more then he does. I would take more peoples words on psd over hollingers. you can learn more by watching players then looking at stat sheets. according to his formulas, steve nash would have never won 1 mvp or the cavs would of been NBA champs the last 2 years and I believe this time last year as SteveNash said, the magic were favorites to win over the lakers

D Roses Bulls
03-07-2011, 11:54 PM
LMFAO is he still saying that? Id LOVE to see this one

chronz, weren't you the one who said hollinger had a very reliable draft formula and that some NBA gm's use his formula which you have never said which ones or provided proof that they do? and his conclusion was that chuck hayes would eventually be better then dwight howard :eyebrow: or how about his formulas for two years that said lopez was better then rose?

Anilyzer
03-07-2011, 11:55 PM
They are 3:2 favorites among EC teams to win it, which I agree looks high. But you know what, right now, I don't think it's too crazy. I can see how a purely statistical thing could see that. The Heat can't beat a winning team, the Bulls just beat the Heat and Magic (Hollinger favors recent play), Miami has lost 4 in a row.

They are the hottest team in the East. Miami isn't a championship contender in most people's eyes. Boston probably is the only other true contender it other people's. So two true contenders. Not too crazy for them to be 3:2.

A human wouldn't have it like that, but that's the thing...it isn't a human, and sometimes it's cool to have a different perspective. This is a formula mixed in with thousands of simulations...

yeah... I mean if his game simulation software is good enough, and maps onto reality fairly well, then you could start to come up with something somewhat meaningful.

It sounded like it was based on statistical factors of the teams and the games played and the formula that was presented though.

anyways, I'm sure that Hollinger is very clever and I agree it is very interesting. When I said anybody could just pull numbers out of their ***, I didn't mean that's what he's doing, I just meant that my made up numbers (25% and 15% for each top team) would be approximately as good.

For instance a 24% for the Celtics to reach the Finals versus a 25% chance for them to reach the Finals isn't really that meaningful or test-able since we only have one actual 2011 NBA playoff season.

So, I can say that my formula predicts that the Celtics have a 31.323232% chance of winning, but again, wtf

It only becomes meaningful if we ran the playoff sequence 1,000 or even several million times. In a single playoff season the extra 1% is meaningless.

Right now the Lakers and Heat are 3:1 dogs to win the Title, and Spurs and Celtics are appx 5:1 dogs. Bulls are 9:1 dogs.

That sounds more reasonable than Hollinger saying Bulls are 4:1 to win it and 2:1 to come out of the east. I know the Heat are under fire right now but still....

http://sports.bodog.com/sports-betting/basketball-futures.jsp

also

http://www.vegas.com/gaming/futures/nbabasketball.html


Yeah... I think I still like Miami to come out of the East

CubsBullsBucs
03-08-2011, 12:01 AM
If the Bulls have to play the Knicks in the first round, their chances of winning drops to 0.00%

comments like that are what makes most knicks fans as cocky and stupid as they are

EaglesJackson10
03-08-2011, 12:01 AM
1.7% is where it's at... so congrats to the 2011 NBA champions, the 76ers.

I'll take those odds.

Squad13
03-08-2011, 12:02 AM
I don't see the bulls beating the Lakers, we make Boozer work very hard for every basket. Rose will give us fits but nobody else worries me on offense.

Chi StateOfMind
03-08-2011, 12:13 AM
If the Bulls have to play the Knicks in the first round, their chances of winning drops to 0.00%

knicks are good but there a poor mans miami...except miami has way better "d" and lebron and wade shi** on melo and amare.....and keep sippin that bulls hatorade b/c i know ur thirsty see u in the playoffs:)

fadedmario
03-08-2011, 12:16 AM
Bulls are the real deal. But not sure they will win it or do I think they should be picked over LA. We'll see come playoff time...

cubswin25
03-08-2011, 12:21 AM
I'm a big Bulls fan but I think a lot will have to go right for them to win a title this year. Sure with their big four(with Rose playing at MVP level), deep bench and defense it's totally possible. Especially since you never know when age might catch up to the Celtics, Lakers or Spurs come playoff time. They need guys like Korver, Bogans or Butler to shoot really well and Deng to have big series. One thing people kinda overlook about the Bulls is how well they have played since early December against the top teams. Going into December 4th the Bulls were 9-8, and have gone 35-10 since. With 7 of those loses being against the Clippers, Bobcats(twice), Nets, 76ers, Raptors, and Warriors. Which are basically all games the Bulls didn't show up in. Because they took those teams too lightly and lost close games.



So the only legit playoff teams that beat the Bulls during this 45 game stretch is the Blazers, Hawks and Knicks with all of those games being on the road. While they have beat the Thunder, Lakers, Celtics, Magic twice, Heat three times, Mavericks, Grizzlies, Hornets(twice) and Spurs. So when you think about it this team over the last few months is beating almost everyone that's put in front of them. So yes teams like the Spurs, Lakers, Celtics, Magic, Thunder beat the Bulls six times during the first 17 games. But how much is the Bulls losing those games have to do with being without Boozer and not gelling as a team yet? Heat fans talk about how they don't like to count the games they lost early, because they were still figuring things out and geling. But the Bulls actually have more new players then the Heat do(also didn't have Boozer all preseason and the first month of the year), and a whole new coaching staff. So maybe they loses to the Spurs or Lakers or Celtics on the road early in the year happen anyways. Who knows, but I think the Bulls team we saw since early to mid December is more of the real Bulls team. So when you consider they haven't lost to a top 4 East or West team since December 2nd, it's pretty impressive. Especially since it's not just a few games. They have gone 10-0 vs the Heat,Magic,Spurs,Lakers, Celtics, Mavericks and Thunder. So if they aren't a serious finals contender, I dunno who is.

DaBear
03-08-2011, 12:23 AM
The Bulls have a shot to win it all this year, but I don't think they have the best shot.

PrestigeWldWde
03-08-2011, 12:24 AM
these numbers dont mean anything really, but it is interesting that the Bulls are #1.

I have a question tho. Since your a Bulls fan, dont you think you should have a Bulls sig, why do you have to have a heat trashing sig???? I am not saying anything bad about Bulls fans, or saying Bulls fans are the only haters, there is alot of Heat fans that hate the Bulls, but I do mainly see Bulls fans have sigs against the Heat than I do Heat fans have sigs against the Bulls...

I agree.
Is my sig ok?;)

redwhitenblue
03-08-2011, 12:27 AM
Since January 1st, Bulls are 8-0 vs the top 7 teams (top 8, but they're included). They've played Miami (x3), BOS (x1), ORL (x2), SA (x1), DAL (x1) in that time. That signals they have a chance. They're behind Boston, imo, from the East.

PrestigeWldWde
03-08-2011, 12:29 AM
Haha.... The bulls arent winning a title this season. They're a really good team, but thats comical..

...what someone who knows absolutely NOTHING about the NBA says.

RipCity32
03-08-2011, 12:31 AM
People got to remember to the Bulls are not new to the playoffs they been pretty good in them the last couple of years and now they have a more complete team and when i look at others teams in the east they just dont have a full team like the bulls do besides Celtics of course.

cubswin25
03-08-2011, 12:33 AM
Since January 1st, Bulls are 8-0 vs the top 7 teams (top 8, but they're included). They've played Miami (x3), BOS (x1), ORL (x2), SA (x1), DAL (x1) in that time. That signals they have a chance. They're behind Boston, imo, from the East.

10-0 if you go back to December 3rd and add wins over Lakers and Thunder in.

LA_Raiders
03-08-2011, 12:34 AM
I would love to see a Lakers vs. Bulls rematch....

Kobe vs Rose
Gasol vs Booz
Bynum vs Noah

Lakers in 6

redwhitenblue
03-08-2011, 12:37 AM
10-0 if you go back to December 3rd and add wins over Lakers and Thunder in.
Yeah. Right before that they had suffered back to back losses to ORL and BOS. In Nov they lost to BOS, LAL and SA, but beat DAL again. Boozer wasn't there that month, and in the losses to BOS and ORL in DEC Boozer was playing limited minutes.


They've been good against the top teams, that is meaningful come playoff time.

69centers
03-08-2011, 12:38 AM
Last year at this time he gave Orlando a 25% chance of winning and that the Jazz had a better chance than the Lakers....

Exactly why Hollinger and his geek stats are a joke to me.

cubswin25
03-08-2011, 12:46 AM
People got to remember to the Bulls are not new to the playoffs they been pretty good in them the last couple of years and now they have a more complete team and when i look at others teams in the east they just dont have a full team like the bulls do besides Celtics of course.

True they took the Celtics too seven games two years ago. Then last season lost to the Cavs in 5, but four of those games were close games. The Bulls just didn't have a low post scorer, deep bench or play with the same defense the last two years. But they were from from a easy first round match up for the Celtics and Cavs. Overall Rose/Noah/Deng have played very well in the playoffs in their careers and so has Boozer with the Jazz. So these players have playoff experience and won big playoff games already. Boozer/Deng both have been key guys in winning playoff series in the past. While guys like Rose/Noah were the reasons why the Bulls almost beat the Celtics two years ago and why they played the Cavs so tough. So this isn't like a young Thunder team or Hawks team These guys have experienced the post season before, and these players have took their name up a notch.

redwhitenblue
03-08-2011, 12:59 AM
Bulls going Lakers defense-esque lately.

KCJHoop K.C Johnson (Bulls beat writer)

The Bulls have held seven straight opponents under 90 points, including three at 77 points or lower. They are 6-1 in that stretch.

magichatnumber9
03-08-2011, 01:08 AM
Hollinger put that calculator down before you hurt yourself

MJ-BULLS
03-08-2011, 01:12 AM
we certainly have the defense to do. we have the best d in the nba. but i doubt it.

evadatam5150
03-08-2011, 01:20 AM
As a Bulls fan, I even have to disagree with this. So many of you take Hollingers mathematics so seriously. so for the ones that do, do you agree with this? I say the Lakers are still the favorites like I have been saying for a while now.

1.Bulls: Finals Odds: 32.6% Champ: 17.9%
2. Spurs: Finals Odds: 29.8 Champ 17.8%
3. Lakers: Finals Odds: 27.9% Champ 15.4%
4. Boston: Final Odds: 23.3% Champ 11.3%
5. Miami: Finals Odds 21.2% Champ 10.6%

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/playoffodds

Hollinger's a tool and how this guy stays in employed is beyond me.. Chicago is a very good team and their improvement over the last year is impressive..

cubswin25
03-08-2011, 01:36 AM
Yeah. Right before that they had suffered back to back losses to ORL and BOS. In Nov they lost to BOS, LAL and SA, but beat DAL again. Boozer wasn't there that month, and in the losses to BOS and ORL in DEC Boozer was playing limited minutes.


They've been good against the top teams, that is meaningful come playoff time.

Yeah plus you gotta factor in early in the season this team probably didn't gell to the level they are now offensivly and defensivly. 7 of the 12 players they had in November were new, and they had a whole new coaching staff as well. Then they had Boozer coming back who was another new player, who didn't play all preseason either. Obviously not having Boozer early, and the fact that everybody was still learning how to play together and getting use to the system. Could have potentially changed the out come of some of those early loses to good teams on the road. Especially since most of them were close games. So if this team is healthy and are still rolling like they are come playoff time. Well I think things could get pretty exciting.

ILMindState
03-08-2011, 01:37 AM
When Keith Bogans is your starting SG, anything is possible

Chronz
03-08-2011, 01:39 AM
chronz, weren't you the one who said hollinger had a very reliable draft formula and that some NBA gm's use his formula which you have never said which ones or provided proof that they do? and his conclusion was that chuck hayes would eventually be better then dwight howard :eyebrow: or how about his formulas for two years that said lopez was better then rose?
He does, its held up better than actual selections. And teams that have analytic departments have draft rating systems that share similar methodology.

Hollinger never said Hayes would be better than Dwight, thats just silly

As for Rose, no disrespect your not really equipped to dissect PER so I dont care what conclusion you come to when using it.

As for your conclusion that he gets no respect, coaches and GM's alike disagree.

Chronz
03-08-2011, 01:41 AM
Hollinger's a tool and how this guy stays in employed is beyond me.. Chicago is a very good team and their improvement over the last year is impressive..
He was initially employed because his books earned him acclaim and hes risen the ranks throughout the years to become one of ESPN's most intriguing analysts.

Also whats your point about Chicago? Hes saying they are Finals contenders so how is praising them suppose to discredit Hollinger?

DaBear
03-08-2011, 01:45 AM
I'd like our chances a lot more with someone like Stephen Jackson as opposed to Bogans.

redwhitenblue
03-08-2011, 01:54 AM
I'd like our chances a lot more with me as opposed to Bogans.



Redwhitenblue for Bulls SG!

Knicks21
03-08-2011, 01:57 AM
Who really cares? It is hollinger after all, he has a massive bias on so many teams in the league.

DaBear
03-08-2011, 02:00 AM
Who really cares? It is hollinger after all, he has a massive bias on so many teams in the league.

Hollinger is usually biased against the Bulls.

:facepalm:

cubswin25
03-08-2011, 02:01 AM
If Bogans shoots like he has since January from the field and from 3. For his 17 minutes and around 3 shots per game the Bulls will be ok. But if he shoots like he did in November and December, well that could be a problem. IMO things like Bogans and Korver shooting well and how well a guy like Deng players. Is gonna be the difference from beating the Celtics or losing in 6 or 7 games.

redwhitenblue
03-08-2011, 02:06 AM
If Bogans shoots like he has since January from the field and from 3. For his 17 minutes and around 3 shots per game the Bulls will be ok. But if he shoots like he did in November and December, well that could be a problem. IMO things like Bogans and Korver shooting well and how well a guy like Deng players. Is gonna be the difference from beating the Celtics or losing in 6 or 7 games.
A starting SG shouldn't be shooting 3-4 shots per game and hitting 40%

There is no reason Brewer isn't starting. He's shooting better and is a much better defender.

sargon21
03-08-2011, 02:23 AM
Honestly, Bogans is not a problem any more.

And let's just put it this way, with the way the Bulls have been playing lately, and Perkin's departure, I'd say we have a good a shot as anyone at this point.

Anilyzer
03-08-2011, 02:26 AM
Vegas is saying Chicago is appx 9:1 to win the Title. So either Hollinger's machine is off or the Vegas oddsmakers are.

Again, I admire Hollinger's work, but I feel that you could probably weight a formula or simulation based on what team's you thought would probably beat other teams, just based on having watched them play, and it would be comparably predictive as to who will win the title.

Check it out: I just did a formula, and it says the Lakers are 45% to come out of the West, and 36% to win the Finals.

Ok so let's run the season and see who wins, Hollinger or me.

redwhitenblue
03-08-2011, 02:27 AM
Honestly, Bogans is not a problem any more.

And let's just put it this way, with the way the Bulls have been playing lately, and Perkin's departure, I'd say we have a good a shot as anyone at this point.
Honestly, you're wrong.

I don't disagree we have as good a shot as anyone, but Bogans is a huge problem.

He doesn't pass well, he isn't a great defender (he's good, slightly above average), he's not a good shooter and he can't create. Brewer starting would make this team much better. Butler being integrated into the starting role would be the best, allowing Brewer to stay on the lock down second team. But Thibs doesn't want to hurt the chemistry among these guys.


Bogans is, in fact, the main problem with the Bulls. To say he's not a problem anymore is ludicrous. He's had 1 double digit point game since November 13th.

Lakerhead4ever
03-08-2011, 02:28 AM
this team if a force in this league but not champion material yet. if they win the west, and see the lakers boozer will have nightmare, the lakers are virtually the reason he laft the jazz.lol seriously

Lakerhead4ever
03-08-2011, 02:28 AM
plus they need a sg, rip would have been great for them

redwhitenblue
03-08-2011, 02:29 AM
this team if a force in this league but not champion material yet. if they win the west, and see the lakers boozer will have nightmare, the lakers are virtually the reason he laft the jazz.lol seriously
Tough to win the West when playing in the East.

Lake_Show2416
03-08-2011, 02:45 AM
I would love for the for the Bulls to come out the east, i like them but Hollinger is a complete moron

Knicks21
03-08-2011, 02:54 AM
Hollinger is usually biased against the Bulls.

:facepalm:

That is my point, more often than not he does everything with his heart rather than his head. Miami are on a slump, he hates both spurs, bulls and lakers. It is a choice of who he hates less.

cubswin25
03-08-2011, 03:02 AM
A starting SG shouldn't be shooting 3-4 shots per game and hitting 40%

There is no reason Brewer isn't starting. He's shooting better and is a much better defender.

But Brewer gets more minutes, so that's really what matters. Thibs likes Bogans combo of defense and ability to hit 3s with the starting unit. The fact that Brewer can't shoot from the outside is why he doesn't start IMO. I think Bogans would be starting even if Brewer was 100 percent at the start of the year. This isn't the first time a NBA coach has started Bogans for similar reasons. Remember he was starting for the Spurs last year over Manu. But yeah the basic plan is Bogans combo of defense/outside shooting in 1st and 3rd quarter mostly. But for the most part he switches off Brewer and Korver in the 4th quarter. So by the naked eye it might look bad(because people always pay attention to starting line-ups), but Korver/Brewer are getting over 30 minutes a game at the SG position,and Bogans gets 17. So as long as he holds his own defensivly and shoots 40 percent from 3s, he will be ok in that spot for now.

redwhitenblue
03-08-2011, 03:13 AM
But Brewer gets more minutes, so that's really what matters. Thibs likes Bogans combo of defense and ability to hit 3s with the starting unit. The fact that Brewer can't shoot from the outside is why he doesn't start IMO. I think Bogans would be starting even if Brewer was 100 percent at the start of the year. This isn't the first time a NBA coach has started Bogans for similar reasons. Remember he was starting for the Spurs last year over Manu. But yeah the basic plan is Bogans combo of defense/outside shooting in 1st and 3rd quarter mostly. But for the most part he switches off Brewer and Korver in the 4th quarter. So by the naked eye it might look bad(because people always pay attention to starting line-ups), but Korver/Brewer are getting over 30 minutes a game at the SG position,and Bogans gets 17. So as long as he holds his own defensivly and shoots 40 percent from 3s, he will be ok in that spot for now.
Rasual Butler can hit 3's and play as good on D as Bogans. Hence why I was disappointed tonight that they switched the units and still didn't get Butler in there at all.


Just because a coach has done it before doesn't make it right. Bogans is a crappy SG. I get that he only gets about 15-18 minutes a game, but that IMO is too much as it is.


Bogans doesn't play great defense, he's just good on D. He's horrible on the offensive end. It's not just hitting his shot. He doesn't move on the offensive side, he can't make his own shot for his life (0 unassisted FG's this year), he's a pretty bad passer. It's 4 on 5 offensively and every other team knows it. The other two options excel at one end of the floor, Butler's at least average or above average at both. Bogans is not.


Hitting 2 of 5 3 pt shots when he only takes wide open shots is not a good thing. He's miserable.

cubswin25
03-08-2011, 03:29 AM
He doesn't pass well, he isn't a great defender (he's good, slightly above average), he's not a good shooter and he can't create. Brewer starting would make this team much better. Butler being integrated into the starting role would be the best, allowing Brewer to stay on the lock down second team. But Thibs doesn't want to hurt the chemistry among these guys.


I agree with some of that stuff, but I don't like Brewer starting. Because I do think it's important to have a guy who can hit open 3s with the starting group. Plus I love having Brewer and his defense coming off the bench as well. Part of the reason why the second unit is successful is because they are so good defensivly and can get points off turnovers. So I agree with Thibs that Bogans is a better fit with the starters and Brewer is better fit with the bench on this team. Bogans is a good/solid defender, and average shooter(I wouldn't say he's bad). So as long as he plays defense and is hitting 3s at a good/decent rate. Well he's not going to stop the Bulls from winning games. Especially since guys like Korver/Brewer spend more time at the SG position then Bogans does. The Bulls basically have a 3 way platoon at SG, even though Bogans gets looked at as the SG(despite playing the least amount of minutes). That said is Butler probably better in that same role for 18-20 minutes per game? Well I would have to agree with you on that one. Which if Bogans does struggle with his shooting in the playoffs, Thibs sticking with Bogans in that role due to the teams success could come back to haunt us.




Bogans is, in fact, the main problem with the Bulls. To say he's not a problem anymore is ludicrous. He's had 1 double digit point game since November 13th.


Bogans starting makes him probably the worst SG in the league, but I don't think Bogans is a huge problem. Personally I dislike Bogans as much as the next guy. But after looking at some numbers the last few weeks and watching games. I kinda get what Thibs is doing here with Bogans/Brewer/Korver. It's basically a old fashion baseball type platoon with that spot. Between the 3 over 48 minutes the Bulls are actually getting quality production from that spot offensivly and defensivly. So like I said above can Butler or someone else do a better job in that spot, then Bogans? Sure, but lets also be fair when we bash the guy. Basically saying he sucks because he only had double digit points game once since November 13th is a bit unfair. When the guy averages 3 shots per game. Not many players are gonna score double digits in points with that amount of shots taken. If Bogans was the 9th or 10th guy off the bench playing 17 minutes per game and getting 3 shots, people would hate him much less. But since he's starting it's a bigger deal then it should be. LOL and this is coming from a person who was really pissed off at the deadline when they didn't upgrade that position. But I still stand by my point that guys like Bogans/Korver have to shoot well in the playoffs for the Bulls to beat the top teams.

Giantwarrior
03-08-2011, 03:36 AM
ANYTHING can happen... No one on the bulls has much experience in the playoffs. I would still put my money on the Lakers.

If the Bulls didnt get lucky with 1.5% chance of landing the #1 pick in 2008, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

cubswin25
03-08-2011, 03:36 AM
Rasual Butler can hit 3's and play as good on D as Bogans. Hence why I was disappointed tonight that they switched the units and still didn't get Butler in there at all


Well I'm hoping he gets in there on Weds. Hopefully Thibs just wanted to give him a week to get use to the system. Instead of throwing him in 3 tough games in 4 days like they had over the weekend.



Just because a coach has done it before doesn't make it right. Bogans is a crappy SG. I get that he only gets about 15-18 minutes a game, but that IMO is too much as it is.

I'm not going to pretend for one minute that I know more about what Bogans brings to the table then Stan Van Gundy, Gregg Popovich or Thibs. I know you have a strong opinion on what Bogans can't do or whatever. But If those smart guys keep putting him in that spot, well it probably tells us your being a little harsh on your judgement on some of those things.


Bogans doesn't play great defense, he's just good on D. He's horrible on the offensive end. It's not just hitting his shot. He doesn't move on the offensive side, he can't make his own shot for his life (0 unassisted FG's this year), he's a pretty bad passer. It's 4 on 5 offensively and every other team knows it. The other two options excel at one end of the floor, Butler's at least average or above average at both. Bogans is not

Again you are probably being a little harsh on some of those things. Plus to be fair Bogans isn't trying make is own shot. He basically runs around and gets open when teams double team on the other players. That's basically the role Thibs has for him and also why he doesn't fit with the second unit. Can Butler be better in that role? Yes I think he can. But I think the Bulls can win with Bogans as long as he plays D and hits open shots for 17 minutes a team in that spot. But I agree for the amount of open looks he gets, he probably should be hitting more shots then he does.

cubswin25
03-08-2011, 03:41 AM
ANYTHING can happen... No one on the bulls has much experience in the playoffs. I would still put my money on the Lakers.

Depends on what you mean by much. Rose/Noah have 12 playoff games under their belt. Deng has 21 games, Boozer 44, Korver 32, Brewer 25 and Keith Bogans 18. So that's plenty of playoff experience for a young team.

The-Human-Cigar
03-08-2011, 03:44 AM
beside Chronz, does anybody really care about what Hollinger says?

No, at the end of the day it's the teams making the playoff push, jockeying for home court and trying to keep healthy. Just keep teams low on the radar so we can watch some shockers. Hopefully not at the expense of our own team of course... lol...

redwhitenblue
03-08-2011, 03:53 AM
Depends on what you mean by much. Rose/Noah have 12 playoff games under their belt. Deng has 21 games, Boozer 44, Korver 32, Brewer 25 and Keith Bogans 18. So that's plenty of playoff experience for a young team.
Add in more bench guys, K. Thomas has 89, Butler has 27. The only guys with little experience are Asik, Watson and Gibson. Hell Scalabrine has 39 games of playoff experience :laugh2:

PrestigeWldWde
03-08-2011, 04:59 AM
I'd like our chances a lot more with someone like Stephen Jackson as opposed to Bogans.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I'm tired of people using this argument. Bogans doesn't play starters minutes anyways. Thibs likes to use him to start the game and start the 2nd half because he's a good defender and can hit the open 3 (which he's been doing much better lately). In crunch time Thibs puts in Korver (for offense) or Brewer (for defense).
Bogans can't shoot as well as Korver, but Korver can't play defense as well as Bogans. Bogans can't play defense as well as Brewer, but Brewer can't shoot as well as Bogans. Bogans just doesn't do any 1 thing very well, but he does everything decently. Just watch the actual game instead of looking at the starting 5 and you will understand exactly what i'm talking about.

PrestigeWldWde
03-08-2011, 05:07 AM
ANYTHING can happen... No one on the bulls has much experience in the playoffs. I would still put my money on the Lakers.

If the Bulls didnt get lucky with 1.5% chance of landing the #1 pick in 2008, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

If your daddy didn't decide to pork your mommy then you wouldn't have been able to type that ridiculous sentence.

I hate all of the ****ing people using "if".
If blah....blah.......blah.......****ing blah....then....blah...blah.....became blah.
Besides that, I just love how you are able to predict what would've happened had the Bulls not had the #1 pick. You must be some kind of psychic or jedi freak or something?

ElMarroAfamado
03-08-2011, 05:09 AM
The Bulls are good but....I think Bogans and Brewer are going to cost them in the end...neither of them are really great shooters and in the playoffs teams are bound to clamp down on D Rose...

PrestigeWldWde
03-08-2011, 05:46 AM
The Bulls are good but....I think Bogans and Brewer are going to cost them in the end...neither of them are really great shooters and in the playoffs teams are bound to clamp down on D Rose...

Have you heard of offense for defense substitutions? That's where Kyle Korver comes into play. And just because the position is called "shooting guard" doesn't mean they have to be the ones taking a majority of the shots. Did you see that game last week in Chicago against the Heat? In the final minute of the game Rose drove the lane and kicked the ball out to Deng (a small forward) for a game winning 3-point shot. I'm also guessing you haven't seen the Bulls too much lately because you would notice Bogans shooting much better lately and Brewer is a decent mid-range jumpshooter. By the way, if anything, there is absolutely NO way Brewer hurts this team. He's not needed for shooting the ball. His value comes from his energy and defensive intensity and athleticism. Unlike the Heat, the Bulls didn't go out in the off-season and go get 3 max contract guys and have a championship celebration before the season started. The Bulls went out and built a well-rounded team with guys that do certain things very well. Look at our bench, it seems like when Watson, Korver, Brewer, Gibson, and Asik are out there we don't miss a beat. Just look at games we are trailing in or the starters are struggling. The 2nd string comes in and gets the team back into the game and before you know it, we have another win. I'm not as worried about a SG as some of you guys because i'm glad GarPax didn't freak out and give up Asik or Brewer in any deal because we can address that in the off-season. We may not win a championship this season (although i'm hoping we do), but we are positioning ourselves for contending for the next 5+ years. Thibs has every guy on this team knowing his role and has them playing better and better every month, especially defensively. The team defense is ridiculously good. It was also nice to see Thibs show some emotion at the end of the Bulls/Heat game Sunday. Rose is also starting to show that swagger in the bigger games, he just has that look in his eyes and is starting to get that Kobe Bryant go for the jugular killer instinct that a championship team needs. I love seeing Rose show emotion because he's such a quiet and humble guy. Sorry for the rambling, but i'm excited about the rest of the season. :D

redwhitenblue
03-08-2011, 05:58 AM
The Bulls are good but....I think Bogans and Brewer are going to cost them in the end...neither of them are really great shooters and in the playoffs teams are bound to clamp down on D Rose...
Yeah, Brewer's 47.7 FG% is going to kill the Bulls.

D Roses Bulls
03-08-2011, 07:24 AM
He does, its held up better than actual selections. And teams that have analytic departments have draft rating systems that share similar methodology.

Hollinger never said Hayes would be better than Dwight, thats just silly

As for Rose, no disrespect your not really equipped to dissect PER so I dont care what conclusion you come to when using it.

As for your conclusion that he gets no respect, coaches and GM's alike disagree.

ask stevenash that, he also saw it. also, I understand PER probably better then you do. without googling it, can you even write out the formula and calculate it? unless you have a photographic memory like I do, I doubt it (no disrespect). I was in college when he came out with the formula and was there at the beginning when again he said it was for ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. I dont think you are quite grasping that my friend. just admit it, his formula in comparing Rose and Lopez using PER was just dumb. Again, you keep saying these GM's use it, but prove it my friend cause I have never seen them even talk about it before.

effen5
03-08-2011, 07:57 AM
Add in more bench guys, K. Thomas has 89, Butler has 27. The only guys with little experience are Asik, Watson and Gibson. Hell Scalabrine has 39 games of playoff experience :laugh2:

I mean seriously, Bulls have lots of guys with playoff experience.

tcav701
03-08-2011, 08:26 AM
Stats/Formulas are NOT objective when the analyst and preacher of such formula is also the creator.

Anyone that took an entry level statistics course knows that stats can be wieghted to claim whatever you want them to. If anything, that is very subjective. Hollinger puts emphasis on areas he feels are measurements of a championship contender and not common factors between past champions.

That is pretty subjective if you ask me.

The reason he is so popular is because last year his picks were the Magic and Jazz when most had the Cavs and Lakers. This year it will be the Bulls and Spurs and while both contenders, logical people know the Celtics and Lakers are still the teams to beat. If his formulas supported common sense and the eyeball test, they would get no attention.

Hell, this guy had the Heat as his top team untill they were 9-7 in his "power rankings/win margin formula." This interestingly supported his preseason pick...

The thing that irks me is when he had the Heat on top of his BS poll, Heat fans praised him and Bull fans **** on him. And now that the Bulls own the most wieghtes stat, Bulls fans (not all) agree with him and Heat fans are discrediting him.

And I am not trying to put down the Bulls chance because they are the most improved and I think their chances go up every day. But untill they beat the big brother Celtics, they are a half tier down with the Thunder and Mavs.

Bottom line, we can talk about how brilliant this guy is and his formulas all you want. You guys just let me know when he gets something right.

magichatnumber9
03-08-2011, 08:56 AM
I dont know if I would call the Bulls the favorite but they do have a chance.

jtsunami
03-08-2011, 11:44 AM
Hollinger sucks. I could care less where the Bulls are in his Power Rankings and playoff odds. It wouldn't be as bad if he didn't act like he's on some high horse and is omniscient.

Hollinger says Chris Paul and Deron Williams are hands down better than Rose, and Westbrook is also better. His evidence? PER aka his made-up stat. He uses nothing else to judge players besides his own stat. Doesn't take into consideration supporting cast, TS%, eFG%, team W-L, player role, on-court/off-court, opposition PER, etc. etc. etc. The player with the better PER is the better player according to Hollinger. He has no clue how to do player analysis. That's why he's never been hired by teams as an adviser.

He's not Bill James. He made PER and that's it. And it's popular because of ESPN. It holds no bearing is win production or future team performance like Bill James' (multiple) statistics do. Hollinger sucks and anybody who thinks he doesn't suck sucks.

NOTE: I don't hate him because he thinks CP3, Deron, and Westbrook are better than Rose. I hate him because he uses PER and PER only to discredit the argument for Rose, among many other players.

DLeeicious
03-08-2011, 11:58 AM
1.7% is where it's at... so congrats to the 2011 NBA champions, the 76ers.

lol

footballer2369
03-08-2011, 12:03 PM
and yet so many people take this guys word and mathematics so seriously. maybe they should rethink their position and stop using hollingers stats as proof.

Predictive mathematics and #s or odds are not the same as calculated stats and numbers.

25% to win means they probably won't win, anyway- so he's more right than wrong.

Squad13
03-08-2011, 02:06 PM
I don't see the bulls beating the Lakers, we make Boozer work very hard for every basket. Rose will give us fits but nobody else worries me on offense.

Someone try and argue this with me.

pentel1980
03-08-2011, 02:11 PM
My prediction to rival ESPN 'experts': the first team to 4 wins in the finals has a 100% chance of winning it all.

DaBear
03-08-2011, 02:13 PM
Someone try and argue this with me.

Boozer had a double double against the Lakers in the last meeting, and the Bulls won because of their defense. The Bulls are a better team than they were in December.

Doogolas
03-08-2011, 02:14 PM
Someone try and argue this with me.

You won't score more than 85 three times. We'll score more than 85 seven times.

Thus we will win the series.

bcc
03-08-2011, 02:39 PM
The Celtics aren't "fading"....hate to break it to you.
40-11 on the season without Perkins; 8-4 with him. More importantly, there was absolutely no certainty that they were gonna win another ring WITH him (and his suspect knees) in the lineup.
This trade makes Boston more versatile and dramatically improves their 2nd unit. They'll have about 20 games to get it together before the post season and the results are already starting to show.
This will be a better, deeper and more athletic team come the playoffs.
Much as I like Perk, people are clearly overstating what he brought to the table for Boston. They didn't just trade Bill Russell.
(methinks you'll see a different Perkins without the benefit of having Garnett around)

redwhitenblue
03-08-2011, 02:44 PM
The Celtics aren't "fading"....hate to break it to you.
40-11 on the season without Perkins; 8-4 with him. More importantly, there was absolutely no certainty that they were gonna win another ring WITH him (and his suspect knees) in the lineup.
This trade makes Boston more versatile and dramatically improves their 2nd unit. They'll have about 20 games to get it together before the post season and the results are already starting to show.
This will be a better, deeper and more athletic team come the playoffs.
Much as I like Perk, people are clearly overstating what he brought to the table for Boston. They didn't just trade Bill Russell.
(methinks you'll see a different Perkins without the benefit of having Garnett around)
I think most are just questioning the defensive ability down low. Garnett's a great defender, Kristic isn't, and both O'Neal's are very questionable.

gauth25
03-08-2011, 02:58 PM
Boozer had a double double against the Lakers in the last meeting, and the Bulls won because of their defense. The Bulls are a better team than they were in December.

And the Lakers are definitely better then they were in December.

Rivera
03-08-2011, 03:22 PM
You won't score more than 85 three times. We'll score more than 85 seven times.

Thus we will win the series.

what??? what the heck kind of logic is this????

redwhitenblue
03-08-2011, 03:34 PM
Bulls-Lakers would be one of the lowest scoring finals ever.

Shonuff
03-08-2011, 04:18 PM
thats fine, but if u take so much pride in it you could have at least something about the Bulls in your sigs. Like here is a good one

Bulls vs. Heat (Bulls 3-0)

Bulls record 43-18
Heat record 43-20

Who said the Heat were better than the Bulls :shrug:

Does it really matter? :shrug:

quiksilver2491
03-08-2011, 04:30 PM
Hollinger sucks. I could care less where the Bulls are in his Power Rankings and playoff odds. It wouldn't be as bad if he didn't act like he's on some high horse and is omniscient.

Hollinger says Chris Paul and Deron Williams are hands down better than Rose, and Westbrook is also better. His evidence? PER aka his made-up stat. He uses nothing else to judge players besides his own stat. Doesn't take into consideration supporting cast, TS%, eFG%, team W-L, player role, on-court/off-court, opposition PER, etc. etc. etc. The player with the better PER is the better player according to Hollinger. He has no clue how to do player analysis. That's why he's never been hired by teams as an adviser.

He's not Bill James. He made PER and that's it. And it's popular because of ESPN. It holds no bearing is win production or future team performance like Bill James' (multiple) statistics do. Hollinger sucks and anybody who thinks he doesn't suck sucks.

NOTE: I don't hate him because he thinks CP3, Deron, and Westbrook are better than Rose. I hate him because he uses PER and PER only to discredit the argument for Rose, among many other players.

I'm not a Hollinger fan and I think he has some flaws in his analysis, however strictly using PER isn't one of them. It's obvious you have seen very limited on Hollinger because even a quick look at Hollinger's tab on a player's page reveals a lot more then just PER.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/hollinger/_/id/3456/derrick-rose

bcc
03-08-2011, 04:37 PM
I think most are just questioning the defensive ability down low. Garnett's a great defender, Kristic isn't, and both O'Neal's are very questionable.

Fair enough, but for all intents and purposes, Shaq is just resting. Frankly, I'd let him rest the next 2 weeks; it's just not crucial to have him back right now. Jermaine O'Neal? No one really knows but everyone in the organization insists he's coming along fine, with a likely return date of the first week of April. Delonte West and Big Baby should both be back this week. When all this comes about, the Celtics will be stupid deep.
Krstic isn't Perk defensively but...no joke...is probably a better rebounder. Perk never rebounded like he should have, and his career numbers reflect that. And these new guys WILL get better defensively with more familiarity. Green adds a long, athletic 6'9" guy who's quick enough to play on the perimeter. Any chance an addition like that help makes them a better defensive team? Darn right.

And they'll be plenty big enough inside when/if everyone returns.
7'1" Shaq, 7'0" Krstic and 6'11" KG, Troy Murphy and Jermaine O'Neal.

Bullsfan22
03-08-2011, 05:17 PM
I'm not ready to crown this team yet, like so many others. I think Rose being our only one on one player that can consistently create his own shot will hurt is in the playoffs.

Flash3
03-08-2011, 06:16 PM
when i find a "bulls" sig i like, i will use it. I like to use sigs no one else has or have seen. i changed my other sig because someone else started using it and i had found this one. no reason really why i dont have a bulls sig right now except i havent found one i really like yet that someone else doesnt have.

http://www.terezowens.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/derrick-rose-04-409.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/4te6bc8 ( so gangsta)

http://tinyurl.com/4n35ejg ( i'm sure you can up with a funny caption for him)

http://www.kihitsu.com/images/drose_sat.jpg ( my favorite, boy should a studied harder)

evadatam5150
03-08-2011, 08:52 PM
Predictive mathematics and #s or odds are not the same as calculated stats and numbers.

25% to win means they probably won't win, anyway- so he's more right than wrong.

Bottom line is that he's rarely right.. How many times has his system proved out right at the end of the NBA season...??

Honestly his system is flawed as it doesn't look at intangibles which are oft times more discriminating than pure numbers and formulas..

Chronz
03-08-2011, 09:03 PM
ask stevenash that, he also saw it. Neither of you saw it, Ive had this discussion with him 3-4 years ago.


also, I understand PER probably better then you do. without googling it, can you even write out the formula and calculate it? unless you have a photographic memory like I do, I doubt it (no disrespect). I was in college when he came out with the formula and was there at the beginning when again he said it was for ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. I dont think you are quite grasping that my friend. just admit it, his formula in comparing Rose and Lopez using PER was just dumb.
You can think what you want but until you prove anything it means nothing. Really you were there at the beginning, then it should be pretty easy to prove, so.... whats keeping you?


Again, you keep saying these GM's use it, but prove it my friend cause I have never seen them even talk about it before.
Thats because you dont research the field, Ive read about it in passing from several articles. Ill try and track them down once I see you put the effort into providing this proof.

shizzle09
03-08-2011, 09:15 PM
not sure how the Bulls would have the highest % given the fact that the east has the Celtics, Magic, Knicks, Heat and Hawks in it.

Lakers
Spurs
Cetics
Bulls
Mavericks
Heat

D Roses Bulls
03-08-2011, 09:33 PM
Neither of you saw it, Ive had this discussion with him 3-4 years ago.


You can think what you want but until you prove anything it means nothing. Really you were there at the beginning, then it should be pretty easy to prove, so.... whats keeping you?


Thats because you dont research the field, Ive read about it in passing from several articles. Ill try and track them down once I see you put the effort into providing this proof.

I never said I claimed to see it, but I do remember hearing about it. Stevenash claimed to see it and I had heard it before he even mentioned it in this thread from someone else, so I do believe hollinger would say something like that. And again man, I do understand the math behind his flawed system. I always do my research. A lot of my predictions come true because I do my homework. And again, Ive pointed out in the past on this site how hollingers formulas are a complete waste of time. Besides, again! when he says something is for entertainment purposes, you can not seriously take it serious. the guy never gets anything right. he uses math to predict winners and he hasnt predicted anything right. Well until you prove to me that NBA gm's use his formulas as a guide into drafting players, dont claim that because I read a lot and I have never read that before or ever heard anyone in the NBA even mention his name or his formulas.

Chronz
03-08-2011, 10:02 PM
I never said I claimed to see it, but I do remember hearing about it. Stevenash claimed to see it and I had heard it before he even mentioned it in this thread from someone else, so I do believe hollinger would say something like that. And again man, I do understand the math behind his flawed system. I always do my research. A lot of my predictions come true because I do my homework. And again, Ive pointed out in the past on this site how hollingers formulas are a complete waste of time. Besides, again! when he says something is for entertainment purposes, you can not seriously take it serious. the guy never gets anything right. he uses math to predict winners and he hasnt predicted anything right. Well until you prove to me that NBA gm's use his formulas as a guide into drafting players, dont claim that because I read a lot and I have never read that before or ever heard anyone in the NBA even mention his name or his formulas.
You heard wrong because hes never claimed as such. As for the rest of your post, just do me a favor and prove something. Lets start with the bit where its for entertainment. PER like stats have been around long before Hollinger, he just popularized it and made it mainstream. Im curious as to what makes you THINK its for entertainment. I mean if by entertainment you mean he finds joy in his work and findings then sure, basketball itself serves an entertainment purpose. It doesnt make it any less credible.

So lets have at it, when did PER start and when did he say it shouldnt be taken seriously due to it being used strictly for entertainment.

It seems all these GM's/Coaches never caught wind of this tidbit of information, perhaps after your done with me you should call them and tell them to stop waisting their time with linear weights.

fin_frenzy_84
03-08-2011, 10:15 PM
http://www.terezowens.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/derrick-rose-04-409.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/4te6bc8 ( so gangsta)

http://tinyurl.com/4n35ejg ( i'm sure you can up with a funny caption for him)

http://www.kihitsu.com/images/drose_sat.jpg ( my favorite, boy should a studied harder)

I think he should use mine...

D Roses Bulls
03-08-2011, 10:16 PM
You heard wrong because hes never claimed as such. As for the rest of your post, just do me a favor and prove something. Lets start with the bit where its for entertainment. PER like stats have been around long before Hollinger, he just popularized it and made it mainstream. Im curious as to what makes you THINK its for entertainment. I mean if by entertainment you mean he finds joy in his work and findings then sure, basketball itself serves an entertainment purpose. It doesnt make it any less credible.

So lets have at it, when did PER start and when did he say it shouldnt be taken seriously due to it being used strictly for entertainment.

It seems all these GM's/Coaches never caught wind of this tidbit of information, perhaps after your done with me you should call them and tell them to stop waisting their time with linear weights.

that's wrong. there was a similar system, but PER is hollingers system. he actually took claim on it in one of his chats about a month ago, maybe a little more, maybe a little less. you can check in the archives of ESPN for the chat and yes he has claimed at first it was for entertainment purposes and now he acts like its a proven method when it isn't. also, again I dont think I'm wrong on what I hard about the dwight Howard comparison. I cant give you a exact date it started, that is soemthing I can not give an exact date on because I will admit I dont remember, but I believe it was my freshman year of high school. and again man, post the exact quotes of the coaches, gm's, scouts, ect that use his system. if they used his system and really believed in it, trust me, he would of been hired by a NBA team by now. I like you chronz, but sometimes debating you is like debating a brick wall.

Chronz
03-08-2011, 10:34 PM
that's wrong. there was a similar system, but PER is hollingers system. he actually took claim on it in one of his chats about a month ago, maybe a little more, maybe a little less. you can check in the archives of ESPN for the chat
UGH try to follow whats being said, read the bit where I said PER LIKE stats have been around, aka the use of linear weights or in other cases regression analysis, they have been around LONG before Hollinger.



and yes he has claimed at first it was for entertainment purposes and now he acts like its a proven method when it isn't.

I know you think so, but can you provide any proof?


also, again I dont think I'm wrong on what I hard about the dwight Howard comparison. I cant give you a exact date it started, that is soemthing I can not give an exact date on because I will admit I dont remember, but I believe it was my freshman year of high school. and again man, post the exact quotes of the coaches, gm's, scouts, ect that use his system. if they used his system and really believed in it, trust me, he would of been hired by a NBA team by now. I like you chronz, but sometimes debating you is like debating a brick wall.

It feels this way because you refuse to move the conversation forward. Im not going to waste time scourging through the web until you prove that your willing to do the same. Show me something and Ill show you something, thats not a brickwall talking, thats the definition of fairness.

And no he wouldnt be hired on that alone, a GM carries more responsibility than you know. I dont pretend to know everything about their job but I do know they have to be able to manage relationships between coaches/players and possess skills outside the analytical field.

Kakaroach
03-08-2011, 10:42 PM
Interesting as always from Hollinger, but all of his crazy prediction stuff rarely turns out right.

Sox72
03-08-2011, 10:46 PM
http://www.terezowens.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/derrick-rose-04-409.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/4te6bc8 ( so gangsta)

http://tinyurl.com/4n35ejg ( i'm sure you can up with a funny caption for him)

http://www.kihitsu.com/images/drose_sat.jpg ( my favorite, boy should a studied harder)

That first one is incredibly gay.

D Roses Bulls
03-08-2011, 11:43 PM
UGH try to follow whats being said, read the bit where I said PER LIKE stats have been around, aka the use of linear weights or in other cases regression analysis, they have been around LONG before Hollinger.



I know you think so, but can you provide any proof?


It feels this way because you refuse to move the conversation forward. Im not going to waste time scourging through the web until you prove that your willing to do the same. Show me something and Ill show you something, thats not a brickwall talking, thats the definition of fairness.

And no he wouldnt be hired on that alone, a GM carries more responsibility than you know. I dont pretend to know everything about their job but I do know they have to be able to manage relationships between coaches/players and possess skills outside the analytical field.

my bad, I didnt see the LIKE part. but because your system is close to another system doesnt mean your gonna get the same results or better results. there is a reason why people argue against hollingers system compared to other advance statistics. because hollingers is not proven and it has been around long enough to have proven its worth and it really hasnt proven its worth. I didnt say hollinger would be hired as a GM, but if his formulas were proven and he was that good at analyzing players especially coming in through the draft, he would have a job with a team in the front office or scouting department at the VERY least and they would pay him better then ESPN does. I can try and find that where he even said it was for entertainment purposes, but I will admit, its gonna be hard to do so because I would have to search through many of his past chats where he even admitted it. I will come across it one day though, I usually always do. again though, you need to find where you said you saw that gm's use his formulas because quite honestly like i said, I read a lot and I have never come across that. I have never heard hollinger even mentioned outside of ESPN.

Anilyzer
03-09-2011, 02:48 AM
Stats/Formulas are NOT objective when the analyst and preacher of such formula is also the creator.

Anyone that took an entry level statistics course knows that stats can be wieghted to claim whatever you want them to. If anything, that is very subjective. Hollinger puts emphasis on areas he feels are measurements of a championship contender and not common factors between past champions.

That is pretty subjective if you ask me.

The reason he is so popular is because last year his picks were the Magic and Jazz when most had the Cavs and Lakers. This year it will be the Bulls and Spurs and while both contenders, logical people know the Celtics and Lakers are still the teams to beat. If his formulas supported common sense and the eyeball test, they would get no attention.

Hell, this guy had the Heat as his top team untill they were 9-7 in his "power rankings/win margin formula." This interestingly supported his preseason pick...

The thing that irks me is when he had the Heat on top of his BS poll, Heat fans praised him and Bull fans **** on him. And now that the Bulls own the most wieghtes stat, Bulls fans (not all) agree with him and Heat fans are discrediting him.

And I am not trying to put down the Bulls chance because they are the most improved and I think their chances go up every day. But untill they beat the big brother Celtics, they are a half tier down with the Thunder and Mavs.

Bottom line, we can talk about how brilliant this guy is and his formulas all you want. You guys just let me know when he gets something right.

yes, very well said. Even if Hollinger's formulas are awesome, he is still putting the wrong answer out there. It seems clear that he could plug some different weights into his spreadsheets or programs or however he does it and come up with different answers--probably closer to the common sense answers or the Vegas odds.

TonySaysWhat?
03-09-2011, 03:06 AM
If the Bulls have to play the Knicks in the first round, their chances of winning drops to 0.00%

Exactly! If the Bulls play the Knicks, there chances drop down to 0%...for the Knicks :D

JordansBulls
03-09-2011, 09:57 AM
Bulls should be no where near the favorites unless we have HCA throughout.

Squad13
03-09-2011, 10:09 AM
You won't score more than 85 three times. We'll score more than 85 seven times.

Thus we will win the series.
:laugh:

Boozer had a double double against the Lakers in the last meeting, and the Bulls won because of their defense. The Bulls are a better team than they were in December.

Double double? so what? Our length renders boozer almost a liability on O. Look at his numbers on the jazz vs us the last few years in the playoffs. You don't have the length to compete with us in a 7 game series.

jtsunami
03-09-2011, 11:21 AM
I'm not a Hollinger fan and I think he has some flaws in his analysis, however strictly using PER isn't one of them. It's obvious you have seen very limited on Hollinger because even a quick look at Hollinger's tab on a player's page reveals a lot more then just PER.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/hollinger/_/id/3456/derrick-rose

What on Earth are you talking about? That link has more than just PER on there, but he didn't create any of those. I'm talking about him evaluating the player. Go into one of his chats and I'm sure he'll bring up Derrick Rose and how he's not even an MVP candidate. And his reasoning is because other players' PERs are higher. That's it.

So it's not obvious I've seen little of John Hollinger. He has made three things: PER, power rankings, and playoff odds. Almost all are completely useless. No site outside of ESPN uses PER. Basketball-reference and NBA.com use their own efficiency statistic similar to his. But they don't use his because they see the flaws in it. John Hollinger sucks because he does nothing for the NBA or NBA analysis besides praise PER and bash you if you don't. Like I said, if he was such a great analyst, wouldn't he have been hired as an adviser for a team where he'd be making exponentially more money?

jaded01
03-09-2011, 11:49 AM
these numbers dont mean anything really, but it is interesting that the Bulls are #1.

I have a question tho. Since your a Bulls fan, dont you think you should have a Bulls sig, why do you have to have a heat trashing sig???? I am not saying anything bad about Bulls fans, or saying Bulls fans are the only haters, there is alot of Heat fans that hate the Bulls, but I do mainly see Bulls fans have sigs against the Heat than I do Heat fans have sigs against the Bulls...

we (bulls fans) didn't post in every one of your (heat fans) threads about how lebron was overrated and not even that good and should never be an mvp contender. that was you guys on our threads about rose. you deserve all the flaming that you are getting and will continue to get because you talked mad **** and didnt realize you have 3 whining choke artists and a bunch of scrubs and can't beat anyone good.

Chronz
03-09-2011, 11:51 AM
but because your system is close to another system doesnt mean your gonna get the same results or better results. there is a reason why people argue against hollingers system compared to other advance statistics. because hollingers is not proven and it has been around long enough to have proven its worth and it really hasnt proven its worth.
Proven its worth? No stat has "proven" its worth if PER hasnt, every stat has its flaws, there will never be an end all be all stat, and if you think people in the business think so your in the wrong, what PER is, its universally accepted as one of the best linear metrics around.


I didnt say hollinger would be hired as a GM, but if his formulas were proven and he was that good at analyzing players especially coming in through the draft, he would have a job with a team in the front office or scouting department at the VERY least and they would pay him better then ESPN does.
No he wouldnt, its very presumptuous of you to pretend to know what he would do with his life. Its not hard for statisticians to get jobs within the NBA, plenty of less accomplished egg heads have been able to do so.


I can try and find that where he even said it was for entertainment purposes, but I will admit, its gonna be hard to do so because I would have to search through many of his past chats where he even admitted it. I will come across it one day though, I usually always do.
I HIGHLY doubt you will


again though, you need to find where you said you saw that gm's use his formulas because quite honestly like i said, I read a lot and I have never come across that. I have never heard hollinger even mentioned outside of ESPN.

This just tells me you dont read much, hes definitely mentioned throughout alot of media outlets. Hes definitely the most mentioned ESPN analyst due to his polarizing status.

blacknell
03-09-2011, 11:59 AM
i seriously doubt the spurs make it out the west

Dankster
03-09-2011, 12:16 PM
Actually based on Johns statistics, the Bulls are the 2nd favorite to win (18.5%) after the Lakers (19.6%.) As many posters have stated almost every advanced statistic has a certain flaw to it, which should be expected with principles that are still relatively new and need tweaking.

I'd prob say the odds should be in this order from a more realistic viewpoint: Lakers>Celtics>Spurs>Mia>Dallas>Chi>OKC

JordansBulls
03-09-2011, 12:29 PM
I would like the Bulls to end up with the #1 seed in the east, but if not I would like to have a better record than the Lakers as I think we need HCA to beat them.

SchyGuy11
03-09-2011, 12:33 PM
If the Bulls have to play the Knicks in the first round, their chances of winning drops to 0.00%

haha nope

DenButsu
03-09-2011, 12:34 PM
I would like the Bulls to end up with the #1 seed in the east, but if not I would like to have a better record than the Lakers as I think we need HCA to beat them.

Without presuming to speak on his behalf, I'd suspect that Chronz would say the Lakers will beat Chicago regardless of who has HCA, because it doesn't matter. :cool:

In all seriousness, Chicago has been playing some kick-*** ball lately. I was vocal in a certain thread about Rose needing to get to the line more, but he may just have claimed MVP front-runner status by now.

DaBear
03-09-2011, 02:09 PM
:laugh:


Double double? so what? Our length renders boozer almost a liability on O. Look at his numbers on the jazz vs us the last few years in the playoffs. You don't have the length to compete with us in a 7 game series.

We can limit Gasol in the paint, and the perimeter defense has vastly improved since the last meeting. You're underrating the Bulls here.

Ebbs
03-09-2011, 02:38 PM
lol @ DEN having a better chance to win then OKC

JordansBulls
03-09-2011, 06:14 PM
lol @ DEN having a better chance to win then OKC

They may be able to upset them in round 1 though.

D Roses Bulls
03-09-2011, 06:55 PM
Proven its worth? No stat has "proven" its worth if PER hasnt, every stat has its flaws, there will never be an end all be all stat, and if you think people in the business think so your in the wrong, what PER is, its universally accepted as one of the best linear metrics around.


No he wouldnt, its very presumptuous of you to pretend to know what he would do with his life. Its not hard for statisticians to get jobs within the NBA, plenty of less accomplished egg heads have been able to do so.


I HIGHLY doubt you will


This just tells me you dont read much, hes definitely mentioned throughout alot of media outlets. Hes definitely the most mentioned ESPN analyst due to his polarizing status.

chronz, I know I am right on every single point I made, but I will say you are right on one point though, the media does mention hollinger once in a while (I should of clarified on that more and that is too bash him. I never hear one praise for hollinger. again though, you keep putting down my points when I know I am right and yet you haven't shown proof of what I asked for nor any proof in the mvp thread that others are asking you for. so again, till you show the proof i want, you can't disclaim nothing. you kind of contradicted yourself on some of your post especially on the stat part when you use stats to try and prove your point all the time.

Young2Kinsler
03-09-2011, 07:10 PM
LOL Miami with better odds than Dallas. Hollinger really is a biased *******.

cubswin25
03-09-2011, 07:16 PM
Fair enough, but for all intents and purposes, Shaq is just resting.

No he's still hurt, and who knows what type of shape he will be at his age when he returns. The Celtics need him to be really good, or there's no doubt they will have some issues.



Jermaine O'Neal? No one really knows but everyone in the organization insists he's coming along fine, with a likely return date of the first week of April.

I doubt you will see him play the rest of the year. He's missed basically the whole season and not someone you should count anything from in the playoffs.



Delonte West and Big Baby should both be back this week. When all this comes about, the Celtics will be stupid deep.

Well those guys are good role players, but that's it.



Krstic isn't Perk defensively but...no joke...is probably a better rebounder

:facepalm: Look at the numbers Krstic is a terrible rebounder for a guy 7 footer. That's why the Thunder needed to upgrade the C position, and were willing to part with Green to do it. All Krstic is a 7 footer who can score a little bit. He's not a good defender or rebounder, which the Celtics need in the middle if they will be playing Magic and Bulls in tough playoff series.



Green adds a long, athletic 6'9" guy who's quick enough to play on the perimeter. Any chance an addition like that help makes them a better defensive team? Darn right.

Getting Green is a nice move, and having a younger player who can score coming off the bench will help them beat the Bulls,Lakers,Spurs, Magic, Mavs or Heat. But if that's a upgrade or not is going to depend on what Shaq gives them. If Shaq healthy and playing good like he did earlier in the season then the Celtics might be better. But if Shaq is hurt or playing poorly, then the team downgraded overall. Because they are gonna have a hard time beating the Magic, Bulls, Lakers, Spurs, Mavs and maybe even the Heat. With Krstic, Glen Davis and out of shape undersized Troy Murphy at C.