PDA

View Full Version : What is wrong with John Hollinger?



NYSpirit1
10-12-2012, 05:43 PM
He predicted in his NBA Insider reveal that the Nuggets would finish at the 2 seed above the Thunder and Lakers. :facepalm:

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-12-2012, 05:46 PM
stop it, everyone has an opinion. we just have to respect it and move on.

no matter how bold opinions are, these are nba analysts, nba stats guru who have been doing this all their careers. let them have their say.

mvb815
10-12-2012, 05:52 PM
imagine how good he would look if he's right

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-12-2012, 05:54 PM
stop it, everyone has an opinion. we just have to respect it and move on.

no matter how bold opinions are, these are nba analysts, nba stats guru who have been doing this all their careers. let them have their say.

Are you saying that because he likes dickriding the Heat? :D

rocket
10-12-2012, 05:56 PM
and?

B'sCeltsPatsSox
10-12-2012, 05:57 PM
Are you saying that because he likes dickriding the Heat? :D

To be fair the Heat have been the best team in basketball the past 2 seasons.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-12-2012, 06:00 PM
Are you saying that because he likes dickriding the Heat? :D

didn't i read somewhere on here that he predicted that the bulls would beat the heat with a healthy rose? I don't agree with it, but he has a valid point.

i would def agree on some points he makes.

very credible guy.

Andrew32
10-12-2012, 06:02 PM
Hollinger might be the only guy from ESPN that I actually respect.

The rest are just media puppets supporting whatever storyline/opinions that will bring in the most viewers / money from the stupid casual fans.

theheatles
10-12-2012, 06:02 PM
Saying this is like saying preseason the 2010-2011 bulls would be the #1 seed, it's not the norm but possible

abe_froman
10-12-2012, 06:05 PM
Saying this is like saying preseason the 2010-2011 bulls would be the #1 seed, it's not the norm but possible

very true.its not a popular pick one that will no doubt be ridiculed,but its possible(much like the example you said)

NYYCowboys
10-12-2012, 06:07 PM
The Nuggets are a really deep talented team. They just added a great stopper on the perimeter in Igoudala. If they click they can be very very good.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-12-2012, 06:08 PM
The Nuggets are a really deep talented team. They just added a great stopper on the perimeter in Igoudala. If they click they can be very very good.

i agree, they are a running team.
and with iggy, i am sure he would create plenty of turnovers that would lead to transition points.

very solid choice by Hollinger, would be interesting to see it play out, although i personally disagree, time will tell.

Corey
10-12-2012, 06:09 PM
If you actually read his analysis, you would see that he's basically calling them a regular season team.

Read:

The Nuggets will challenge for the top seed in the West, but things get more problematic for this team in the postseason, in which a deep bench is of less value than raw star power. Nonetheless, if I were going to drop a few dollars in Vegas on a long shot to win the title, this would absolutely be my play. More likely, the Nuggets won't survive more than a round against the West's heavy hitters come playoff time. Nonetheless, Ujiri and company have done a fantastic job of building a young, cap-friendly, long-term contender from the ashes of the Melo trade. Ignore Denver at your peril.

It's not farfetched to assume that a young, deep, athletic team is going to be a top performer when the other top tier teams (sans OKC) are older teams that might dial it back to get healthy for the post season.

DR_1
10-12-2012, 06:14 PM
To be fair the Heat have been the best team in basketball the past 2 seasons.

Lol what?

ThunderousDemon
10-12-2012, 06:14 PM
stop it, everyone has an opinion. we just have to respect it and move on.

no matter how bold opinions are, these are nba analysts, nba stats guru who have been doing this all their careers. let them have their say.

We don't have to respect his opinion, we can scrutinize it as much as we want.

ThunderousDemon
10-12-2012, 06:18 PM
To be fair the Heat have been the best team in basketball the past 2 seasons.

:o I don't remember the Heat winning the NBA finals in 2011

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-12-2012, 06:18 PM
We don't have to respect his opinion, we can scrutinize it as much as we want.

He def knows more about the NBA than you or I. so if you can scrutinize him and look foolish doing so, than good for you. His predictions are based off of stats, advanced stats, and video.

All I'm saying is most of his points are spot on. They do this for a living, so cut the dude some slack for having an opinion.

GodsSon
10-12-2012, 06:20 PM
Nuggets are easily the deepest team in the league, so it's not far-fetched to think that as injuries occur throughout the season, a team 2-deep at every position won't finish with a high (in this case 2nd) seed.

MiamiBoy77
10-12-2012, 06:21 PM
their job is to get people talking. if everyone predicts Heat Lakers then nobody wants to read anything. he did it to get people like you to talk about it and keep reading

Bruno
10-12-2012, 06:30 PM
If you actually read his analysis, you would see that he's basically calling them a regular season team.

Read:


It's not farfetched to assume that a young, deep, athletic team is going to be a top performer when the other top tier teams (sans OKC) are older teams that might dial it back to get healthy for the post season.

corey, you're not supposed to read the article. you're supposed to just look at the title and fill in the blanks with your own pre-decided opinion.

ThunderousDemon
10-12-2012, 06:33 PM
He def knows more about the NBA than you or I. so if you can scrutinize him and look foolish doing so, than good for you. His predictions are based off of stats, advanced stats, and video.

All I'm saying is most of his points are spot on. They do this for a living, so cut the dude some slack for having an opinion.

I could care less if he does it for a living, doesn't mean his word is absolute.

I want a link that says that these particular predictions were made by the means that you are describing.

ThunderousDemon
10-12-2012, 06:36 PM
corey, you're not supposed to read the article. you're supposed to just look at the title and fill in the blanks with your own pre-decided opinion.

You can't read the article unless you pay for insider.

Dade County
10-12-2012, 06:38 PM
:o I don't remember the Heat winning the NBA finals in 2011

That was because of basketball reasons ( Lbj was following orders :nod: )

NBA = Entertainment

Get with the program... You are a laker fan, you should know this already.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-12-2012, 06:39 PM
I could care less if he does it for a living, doesn't mean his word is absolute.

I want a link that says that these particular predictions were made by the means that you are describing.

again, you're not getting the point. i honestly have no idea why you're arguing over something so petty.

anyways, he does this for a reason therefore his opinion should be respected. that doesnt mean his word is "absolute." you were dismissing his opinion, and i was reminding you that if anyone has a right to an opinion, no matter how bold, its Hollinger. not you or I.

Second, you want a link over what he uses to describe players? have you ever read any of his articles? his analysis? him and tom hab. both post up stats, advanced stats, references, videos, or sometimes all of the above before they post their opinion. if you want a link to prove it, maybe you should purchase ESPN insider instead of trying to act like a wise *****?

it is widely known that Hollinger and Tom are stats gurus.

i'm so surprised i even have to discuss this with you when you can simply google this for yourself lol

ThunderousDemon
10-12-2012, 06:50 PM
again, you're not getting the point. i honestly have no idea why you're arguing over something so petty.

anyways, he does this for a reason therefore his opinion should be respected. that doesnt mean his word is "absolute." you were dismissing his opinion, and i was reminding you that if anyone has a right to an opinion, no matter how bold, its Hollinger. not you or I.

Second, you want a link over what he uses to describe players? have you ever read any of his articles? his analysis? him and tom hab. both post up stats, advanced stats, references, videos, or sometimes all of the above before they post their opinion. if you want a link to prove it, maybe you should purchase ESPN insider instead of trying to act like a wise *****?

it is widely known that Hollinger and Tom are stats gurus.

i'm so surprised i even have to discuss this with you when you can simply google this for yourself lol


we just have to respect it and move on.
So we can't question it because it's John Hollinger the NBA GURU!!! :worthy:

Stop kissing up to authority figures.

I'm not going to pay money to find out what someone's opinion is.


i honestly have no idea why you're arguing over something so petty.

Yet, here you are responding to me.


i was reminding you that if anyone has a right to an opinion, no matter how bold, its Hollinger. not you or I.

:laugh: Everyone has a right to an opinion.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-12-2012, 07:00 PM
:laugh: Everyone has a right to an opinion.

yet you're bashing hollinger for his. :clap:

ThunderousDemon
10-12-2012, 07:08 PM
yet you're bashing hollinger for his. :clap:

I'm bashing his opinion, not his right to have an opinion.

Bruno
10-12-2012, 07:12 PM
You can't read the article unless you pay for insider.

right.

people who don't pay the few dollars for insider shouldn't be spewing non-analysis.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
10-12-2012, 07:15 PM
Lol what?


:o I don't remember the Heat winning the NBA finals in 2011

Seeing that they're the only team to make it to the Finals both times in the past 2 seasons, then yes they have been the best team from 2010-present.

tp13baby
10-12-2012, 07:15 PM
Denver had the second best record in basketball at the beginning of last year before Nene got injured. Injuries plagued them real badly last and being a young team. Ill take my team against everyone in the west not named the lakers and OKC with confidence.

PurpleJesus
10-12-2012, 07:16 PM
why is there a thread for this? there is nothing out of hand by predicting Denver as the #2 seed.

PleaseBeNice
10-12-2012, 07:18 PM
im in mia bish, why are you on hollingers bleep?

bholly
10-12-2012, 07:19 PM
I could care less if he does it for a living, doesn't mean his word is absolute.

I want a link that says that these particular predictions were made by the means that you are describing.


John Hollinger ‏@johnhollinger
90-95% model. Small subjective adjustments. MT @16to17 How do you make record predictions? Conjecture or based on a model?
.

ThunderousDemon
10-12-2012, 07:20 PM
.

Thanks

ThunderousDemon
10-12-2012, 07:24 PM
right.

people who don't pay the few dollars for insider shouldn't be spewing non-analysis.

I guess I'm going to have to pay for insider to spew my analysis.

SteveNash
10-12-2012, 07:38 PM
stop it, everyone has an opinion. we just have to respect it and move on.

He doesn't really have opinions though, he takes stats and tries to manipulate them to predict future events. He picked Denver to finish 2nd last year, time to fix his formula.

beasted86
10-12-2012, 07:53 PM
Didn't he have them #2 last season?

JNA17
10-12-2012, 08:12 PM
imagine how good he would look if he's right

Good thing he hasn't been right about anything.

I remember in 2008 or 2009 he had the Jazz above the lakers in seeding and the Jazz beating the lakers in 5 or 6 in a playoff series.


Hollinger is the definition of an idiot. The fact that he has been on ESPN for as long as he has been is a disgrace to the network.

amos1er
10-12-2012, 08:47 PM
Good thing he hasn't been right about anything.

I remember in 2008 or 2009 he had the Jazz above the lakers in seeding and the Jazz beating the lakers in 5 or 6 in a playoff series.


Hollinger is the definition of an idiot. The fact that he has been on ESPN for as long as he has been is a disgrace to the network.

Yup...he is wrong more than he is right. It is well known that his statistical analysis and predictions reflect his bias. Clearly he has an agenda which has been consistently visible in his predictions and analysis throughout the years. The only people who respect his opinions are Lebron fans and Laker haters...that should tell you everything you need to know. I wish I could make a good living and retain the title and status of "expert" despite being wrong most of the time. Sounds like a great gig, where do I sign up?

29$JerZ
10-12-2012, 08:48 PM
Thunder and Lakers are built for the Playoffs, Nuggets are typically an excellent regular season team like the Spurs.

amos1er
10-12-2012, 08:56 PM
Picking against the Lakers has been the basis of all Hollinger predictions and analysis throughout the years. If it aint broke, don't fix it. Especially when there are so many Laker haters for him to appeal to. Despite almost always being wrong, he will go on to make another outlandish prediction against the Lakers the very next year like nothing ever happened and there will always be a flock of haters to eat up every word.

ChiSox219
10-12-2012, 09:13 PM
Didn't he have them #2 last season?

Yup

Jamiecballer
10-12-2012, 09:26 PM
you guys are hilarious. his opinions are based on statistical analysis. that doesn't make him a fortune teller.

Corey
10-12-2012, 09:30 PM
...









...










......then don't watch.

On the real though, why get pissy that someone formed their own opinion? If the Nuggets play to potential and stay healthy, they can definitely have a top regular season record. Youth, athleticism, depth and a great coach ...why not?

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-12-2012, 09:33 PM
...









...










......then don't watch.



:clap:

bholly
10-12-2012, 09:45 PM
Yup...he is wrong more than he is right. It is well known that his statistical analysis and predictions reflect his bias. Clearly he has an agenda which has been consistently visible in his predictions and analysis throughout the years. The only people who respect his opinions are Lebron fans and Laker haters...that should tell you everything you need to know. I wish I could make a good living and retain the title and status of "expert" despite being wrong most of the time. Sounds like a great gig, where do I sign up?


Picking against the Lakers has been the basis of all Hollinger predictions and analysis throughout the years. If it aint broke, don't fix it. Especially when there are so many Laker haters for him to appeal to. Despite almost always being wrong, he will go on to make another outlandish prediction against the Lakers the very next year like nothing ever happened and there will always be a flock of haters to eat up every word.

re: his record
I haven't seen his stats for last year, but the year before that he beat vegas in his predictions. What are you basing your claims about him on?

re: his view of the Lakers
His preview for them this year says "I expect the Lakers to make the conference finals and contend for a championship", "What I do expect is for them to be fairly terrifying by playoff time", and "That's cause for legitimate excitement in L.A.". How is he Laker hating exactly?

Also here's how his Laker predictions have been the last few years:
2011-2012 - predicted 40-26, they went 41-25
2010-2011 - predicted them to finish first in the Pacific and West and win the West, they finished second in the West and were swept in the second round
2009-2010 - predicted them to finish first in the Pacific and the West, and win the championship, they did all those and won the championship
2008-2009 - predicted them to finish first in the Pacific and second in the West, they finished first in the West and won the championship

So 2011-12 he underrated them by 1 game, 2010-11 he way overrated them, 2009-10 he was right on, 2008-09 he underrated them by 1 seed.

So what makes you say he has an anti-Laker agenda? The one time he was significantly off in his prediction he overrated them.

sixer04fan
10-12-2012, 10:22 PM
bholly just destroyed you son

b@llhog24
10-12-2012, 11:35 PM
re: his record
I haven't seen his stats for last year, but the year before that he beat vegas in his predictions. What are you basing your claims about him on?

re: his view of the Lakers
His preview for them this year says "I expect the Lakers to make the conference finals and contend for a championship", "What I do expect is for them to be fairly terrifying by playoff time", and "That's cause for legitimate excitement in L.A.". How is he Laker hating exactly?

Also here's how his Laker predictions have been the last few years:
2011-2012 - predicted 40-26, they went 41-25
2010-2011 - predicted them to finish first in the Pacific and West and win the West, they finished second in the West and were swept in the second round
2009-2010 - predicted them to finish first in the Pacific and the West, and win the championship, they did all those and won the championship
2008-2009 - predicted them to finish first in the Pacific and second in the West, they finished first in the West and won the championship

So 2011-12 he underrated them by 1 game, 2010-11 he way overrated them, 2009-10 he was right on, 2008-09 he underrated them by 1 seed.

So what makes you say he has an anti-Laker agenda? The one time he was significantly off in his prediction he overrated them.

:burn:

JasonJohnHorn
10-12-2012, 11:45 PM
Well... how much fun would it be if he just picked the no-brainers? "Um, I think SA will finish near the top and LAL and OKC, with LAC coming in close behind." Um... yeah... duh. That's the easy call. It takes balls to say: The Pacers will finish with the best record in the East (which is my prediction). But Hollinger wants to go with DEN. So be it. lol

Greedy22
10-12-2012, 11:58 PM
I don't think it's that much of a stretch for them finish as the 2 seed :shrug: their depth, youth, and athleticism is pretty damn impressive while factoring in their head coach is George Karl. They're gonna be fun to watch.

JordansBulls
10-13-2012, 12:21 AM
He predicted in his NBA Insider reveal that the Nuggets would finish at the 2 seed above the Thunder and Lakers. :facepalm:

That is crazy. I would be surprised if they finished higher than 6th.

Dade County
10-13-2012, 02:47 AM
NBA = Entertainment people


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvMG7mZGo04&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GewuhAx6o8&feature=endscreen&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pikd-9qqQ1c&feature=related

I really don't no how some of you guys can get so heated over this scripted soap opera.

Hawkeye15
10-13-2012, 02:51 AM
Hollinger is one of the more accurate at these preseason predictions crap. So, instead of needing validation on why your team isn't where you think they should be, or the fact that the Lakers/Thunder aren't in his top 2, maybe read his reasoning, and especially his last paragraph, where he clearly states the Lakers and Thunder are the class of the west come playoff time.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
10-13-2012, 03:37 AM
OP is mad that Nuggets are better than his Knicks.

But Hollinger is and has been one of the most accurate NBA analysts the last couple of years.

Guppyfighter
10-13-2012, 04:46 AM
Nuggets were also my second seed pick. A really good team last year and even better this year.

Lakers won the off season award, the same award the Angels, Red Sox, Eagles have all been awarded recently. The Lakers will be contenders by the virtue of Dwight maximizing each possession, but there is legitimate cause for concern. Will Nash finally have the exponential drop off? Will Kobe stay healthy or will injuries catch up? Pau is declining as his metta. But they aren't a sure thing to finish even in the top three seed. I'd say the Nuggets at two is a really good pick and I commend him for it.

eso
10-13-2012, 07:11 AM
To be fair the Heat have been the best team in basketball the past 2 seasons.

Only last season, the Mavs were the year before that, there is a ring to prove that.

Davidgta1
10-13-2012, 08:51 AM
Come on now I like the nuggets but there not gonna beat the thunder for the number one spot.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-13-2012, 09:27 AM
LOL this much is apparent- people that rip on Hollinger are holding a grudge cos he gave an objective opinion/view abou their team.

Jess Christ, acting like little children.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
10-13-2012, 09:50 AM
Come on now I like the nuggets but there not gonna beat the thunder for the number one spot.

Who said that they are?:confused:

69centers
10-13-2012, 10:34 AM
LOL at the OP just realizing now that Hollinger is horrible.


He doesn't really have opinions though, he takes stats and tries to manipulate them to predict future events. He picked Denver to finish 2nd last year, time to fix his formula.

So this isn't an opinion (from his Insider preview of the Celtics)??


Can they amnesty Green yet, or do they have to wait until the games start? Maybe the Celtics are just trying to keep us on our toes and prove they're capable of screwing up, too. Here's what we know: Green was a fungible player before he missed last season with a heart problem; guaranteeing him four years (with a player option on the fourth!) at a rate far beyond any rational market level is something we might expect from a couple of the league's bumbling organizations, but certainly not this one. I can't stress this enough: Green is 26 and played four full seasons in the league, and after all that time there's no evidence he's actually any good and considerable evidence that he's a health risk. Yet he's being paid like a second-tier star. This was, without a doubt, the worst contract of the summer.

b@llhog24
10-13-2012, 11:06 AM
LOL at the OP just realizing now that Hollinger is horrible.



So this isn't an opinion (from his Insider preview of the Celtics)??

He's not really that far off base.

yaswaggin
10-13-2012, 11:10 AM
Bholly destroyed that guy in this thread

Thread should be stickied

Chronz
10-13-2012, 11:14 AM
Yup...he is wrong more than he is right. It is well known that his statistical analysis and predictions reflect his bias. Clearly he has an agenda which has been consistently visible in his predictions and analysis throughout the years. The only people who respect his opinions are Lebron fans and Laker haters...that should tell you everything you need to know. I wish I could make a good living and retain the title and status of "expert" despite being wrong most of the time. Sounds like a great gig, where do I sign up?
oh noes, he cant predict the future with 100% accuracy, fire him.


And actually amongst analysts hes the most right so if he doesn't qualify as an expert I guess Vegas better shut down their business.

LOL at your claims of bias, how is that well known because I thought it was well known that he routinely does the best at preseason projections + playoffs selections.

Just because he picks against the Lakers doesn't make him a hater.


Funny how its usually the Kobephiles who hate Hollinger. THAT should tell you all you need to know.

Chronz
10-13-2012, 11:16 AM
So what makes you say he has an anti-Laker agenda? The one time he was significantly off in his prediction he overrated them.
He remembers him picking the Jazz ahead of LA, thus hes a hater. Thats typical fan boy logic so I wouldn't be surprised if its the case here.

I've questioned him on Hollinger before but hes never substantiated those claims of bias.

Chronz
10-13-2012, 11:19 AM
That is crazy. I would be surprised if they finished higher than 6th.

I think your crazy for being surprised by this team. They are deep, young/athletic and talented, PERFECT recipe for a great regular season isn't it?

xxplayerxx23
10-13-2012, 11:58 AM
I really like the Nuggets to make noise in the playoffs.

Evolution23
10-13-2012, 12:14 PM
Never liked Hollinger. He doesn't know as much as he thinks he does, about the game.

69centers
10-13-2012, 12:34 PM
Funny how its usually the Kobephiles who hate Hollinger. THAT should tell you all you need to know.

And only advanced stat gurus love Hollinger.

Chronz
10-13-2012, 01:32 PM
And only advanced stat gurus love Hollinger.
I would think they appreciate him but tell that to Dr. Berri.

Bravo95
10-13-2012, 03:30 PM
I believe he predicted the Hawks would miss the playoffs last season (even before Horford's injury) and they finished with the 4th best record in the East. But he does good work otherwise.

MrfadeawayJB
10-13-2012, 06:09 PM
this is not that far fetched...any basketball fan knows the nuggets are poised to win a lot of regular season games this year. Its not like he said they are better than those teams

DenButsu
10-14-2012, 12:01 AM
All the claims of Hollinger's "bias" in this thread are pretty funny. Given the extent to which he uses stats as the foundation for his analysis, if anything his predictions are more objective and disimpassioned than those from other experts.

I'm a huge Nuggets fan, but I have them 4th in the WC as of now (behind OKC, LAL and SAS). But it's true that they're well built for regular season success, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them surpass expectations. And it's also true that on the whole they're relatively young and inexperienced, and that their great depth also presents the challenge of figuring out minutes, rotations and lineups. With an injury or two, it wouldn't be too surprising to see them drop to 6th or 7th in such a competitive conference.

I can understand why people think 2nd is too high for them. I actually agree. But it's not that outlandish or anything. The real issue here is just that people are making the mistake of thinking that by Hollinger predicting Denver will be 2nd in the West he's saying they're the second best team, which as Corey and others have pointed out is just not the case if you actually bother to read what he wrote.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-14-2012, 12:04 AM
And only advanced stat gurus love Hollinger.

Maybe because advanced stats, alongside with actual visual data, is a great way to judge a player.

Aren't you the guy who says you don't care to understand advanced stats, so you find it irrelevant? :laugh2:

king4day
10-14-2012, 12:39 AM
Denver is my dark horse title favorite. I doubt they win but they smell like the 04 pistons.
Unlikely they finish ahead of the Lakers or OKC but it's not 100% impossible.

Vinny642
10-14-2012, 12:42 AM
Lol, idk, he does them daily power rankings which is cool

bholly
10-14-2012, 12:59 AM
Lol, idk, he does them daily power rankings which is cool

The funniest thing (and a sure sign you need to start disregarding someone's opinion) is when they cry about those being biased...even though they're 100% automated.

D Roses Bulls
10-14-2012, 01:08 AM
don't let chronz see this..... thats his dad and he will become extremely mad at this.

Corey
10-14-2012, 01:20 AM
LOL at the OP just realizing now that Hollinger is horrible.



So this isn't an opinion (from his Insider preview of the Celtics)??lol@you

Everything Hollinger said about Jeff Green was spot on.

Keep hating because he uses metrics analytics that you dont understand. He does plenty of post game analysis as well, but you choose to overlook it because of your blind hate for him.

Which of the following statements are untrue? -

1) The Celtics guaranteed Jeff Green 9m per year without seeing him play an NBA game post heart surgery.

2) The Celtics are paying him as a second tier star.

3) Green is age 26 and has played 4 full seasons without taking the next step in his development.

4) Signing Green was a high risk move.

That's all he said. All of which are completely accurate.

DenButsu
10-14-2012, 01:47 AM
Denver is my dark horse title favorite. I doubt they win but they smell like the 04 pistons.
Unlikely they finish ahead of the Lakers or OKC but it's not 100% impossible.

Whether they can make serious noise in the postseason will all boil down to how much they can improve defensively. Bad perimeter defense was just too big a liability to make a deep run last season. 'Dala should help on that front, though. We'll see.

LoveMeOrHateMe
10-14-2012, 01:50 AM
To be fair the Heat have been the best team in basketball the past 2 seasons.

Dallas says hi

LoveMeOrHateMe
10-14-2012, 01:51 AM
Hollinger might be the only guy from ESPN that I actually respect.

The rest are just media puppets supporting whatever storyline/opinions that will bring in the most viewers / money from the stupid casual fans.

He's always the one coming up with his weird metrics and all kinds of bs to rate players IMO he's one of the worst and most biased workers on espn he hates the lakers and he lets it be known as well

Vinny642
10-14-2012, 01:59 AM
LOL I dont listen to an analyst since they are usually biased.

Corey
10-14-2012, 02:08 AM
Dallas says hi

Doesn't mean they were a better team, they just played better for a small stretch.

Miami was the best team that season...Dirk got hot at the right time and was able to put Dallas over the top.

b@llhog24
10-14-2012, 02:22 AM
He's always the one coming up with his weird metrics and all kinds of bs to rate players IMO he's one of the worst and most biased workers on espn he hates the lakers and he lets it be known as well

Tell me if you will, what is the problem with his metrics?

Guppyfighter
10-14-2012, 03:01 AM
Doesn't mean they were a better team, they just played better for a small stretch.

Miami was the best team that season...Dirk got hot at the right time and was able to put Dallas over the top.

If you go by point differential they were the best team that season they lost. If you go by point differential the next year, they were the fourth best team.

Point differential being the best indicator for future success. So, no, either way they were not the best team for two years in a row. No matter what you use.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-14-2012, 09:45 AM
based off of predictions. Hollinger's way makes the most sense. in other words, id trust hollinger over what any fan predicts on PSD. lol

B'sCeltsPatsSox
10-14-2012, 11:58 AM
Maybe because advanced stats, alongside with actual visual data, is a great way to judge a player.

Aren't you the guy who says you don't care to understand advanced stats, so you find it irrelevant? :laugh2:

Nah he said that basketball card collectors are smarter than guys that use advanced stats.

Chronz
10-14-2012, 12:26 PM
don't let chronz see this..... thats his dad and he will become extremely mad at this.

Why dont you ever read the threads you enter? I understand if its a deep thread but cmon

b@llhog24
10-14-2012, 01:48 PM
If you go by point differential they were the best team that season they lost. If you go by point differential the next year, they were the fourth best team.

Point differential being the best indicator for future success. So, no, either way they were not the best team for two years in a row. No matter what you use.

Not as in, "year by year" as in literally the past two years. Like how the Spurs was the best team over the period 03-07.

Vampirate
10-14-2012, 03:19 PM
Why dont you ever read the threads you enter? I understand if its a deep thread but cmon

You should have quted your old post then acted like you have no idea where you are.

Punk
10-14-2012, 05:26 PM
The problem with his opinion:

1. Denver doesn't have a Sixth Man like Harrington to stretch PFs like Pau and Ibaka.

2. Although they got deeper, they got younger.

3. Karl has never been a defensive minded coach. His best Denver team still was never 10th in defense. He's an offensive coach.

Lawson/Miller/Stone/Carter
Iggy/Brewer/Fournier
Gallinari/Chandler/Hamilton
Faried/Randolph
Mozgov/McGee/Koufos

That is a team that will most likely finish at best 3rd and worst 6th. They are not better than the Lakers, Thunder, Spurs and Clippers right now.

Chronz
10-14-2012, 05:31 PM
The problem with his opinion:

1. Denver doesn't have a Sixth Man like Harrington to stretch PFs like Pau and Ibaka.
Why would that matter when discussing how many regular season wins a team could pile up? They arent facing the Lakers every game.


2. Although they got deeper, they got younger.
Both help regular season success IMO.



3. Karl has never been a defensive minded coach. His best Denver team still was never 10th in defense. He's an offensive coach.

Lawson/Miller/Stone/Carter
Iggy/Brewer/Fournier
Gallinari/Chandler/Hamilton
Faried/Randolph
Mozgov/McGee/Koufos

That is a team that will most likely finish at best 3rd and worst 6th. They are not better than the Lakers, Thunder, Spurs and Clippers right now
As a Clippers fan, I dont see what makes us so much better for the regular season, I do believe we are the stronger playoff team for the reasons you gave about their defense, but I dont think its by much.

Still that team has some defensive potential, they did add Iggy afterall and Javale should improve on that end at some point. Even an incompetent coach should be able to have a decent defense if he has the talent.

Chronz
10-14-2012, 05:33 PM
You should have quted your old post then acted like you have no idea where you are.

You should go pro

KBfrom8to24
10-15-2012, 12:39 AM
He predicted in his NBA Insider reveal that the Nuggets would finish at the 2 seed above the Thunder and Lakers. :facepalm:

Hollinger is bias eversince, he hates the Lakers because of Kobe, and he hates Kobe because he is the main obstacle to LBJ's greatness.

amos1er
10-15-2012, 01:42 AM
re: his record
I haven't seen his stats for last year, but the year before that he beat vegas in his predictions. What are you basing your claims about him on?

How so? He picked the Heat to win it all in 2011 and he was wrong.

He picked the Magic over the Hawks in the first round. :rolleyes:

He also picked the Spurs over the Grizzlies. :laugh2:

And in his greatest prediction, he predicted that the eventual 2011 champion Mavs would lose in the first round to the Blazers. :facepalm:

Is that your idea of beating vegas? :rolleyes:


re: his view of the Lakers
His preview for them this year says "I expect the Lakers to make the conference finals and contend for a championship", "What I do expect is for them to be fairly terrifying by playoff time", and "That's cause for legitimate excitement in L.A.". How is he Laker hating exactly?

A hater never admits they are a hater. That would make their hating less credible. The calling card of a hater is to unfairly discredit someone in a seemingly"non bias way" so that they appear to have some credence in their outlandish claims. Sometimes when their hating becomes so outlandish that they are in danger of being called out on it, they will throw out a patronizing compliment in order to disguise their true intent so that they come off as having a fair and objective opinion.

Essentially what they are doing is dropping an atomic bomb while at the same time negotiating for peace. Its the same as someone shooting you and then trying to convince you that they had no bad intentions in doing so. They might even offer to help you stitch the wound. But at the end of the day they still are the one who shot you.

Hollinger bashed the Lakers, and then attempted to justify it through some half hearted compliment about them being "terrifying" and "contending for a championship", but only sees them making it to the Western Conference finals. What exactly does he mean by "contending for a championship"? This is a very ambiguous prediction in that it does not specifically allude to their level of contention.

There are a number of teams that could be considered "contenders", but that doesn't necessarily mean that they truly have potential to go all the way. In fact, Hollinger only mentioned them making it to the Western Conference Finals which doesn't take a genius to predict as many others have them making it there as well.

It goes without saying that a 53 win Laker team would not have Home court advantage in both the Conference Finals and League Finals. Therefore, one can easily deduce that a Laker team that he feels will only have 53 wins would be the underdog in both situations, thus significantly reducing their chances of winning it all. There is where I feel his true bias shows.


Also here's how his Laker predictions have been the last few years:
2011-2012 - predicted 40-26, they went 41-25

Every once in a while the sun shines on a dogs arse. How many others did he get wrong in comparison? It's deceptive to only give his best prediction while omitting all his other ones. It's like saying "wow did you see that awesome shot Kobe made in the 4th quarter" While at the same time not mentioning that he went 3/20 for the game.


2010-2011 - predicted them to finish first in the Pacific and West and win the West, they finished second in the West and were swept in the second round

Now your proving my point for me. Another wrong prediction for Hollinger in the very same year that you said be beat out Vegas. :rolleyes: In regards to your defense of his Lakers bias, you also fail to mention that he picked them to lose to Miami in the finals. Am I supposed to forgive all just because he picked the 2 seed Lakers to make the finals just like they had done the 3 previous seasons? A healthy Lakers squad would have had a great shot at beating Miami in the 2011 finals, but of course Hollinger went with his boy Lebron just like he did in 2009 where he incorrectly picked the Cavs to win it all.


2009-2010 - predicted them to finish first in the Pacific and the West, and win the championship, they did all those and won the championship

Wow...he really went out on a limb with this one...:rolleyes:

lol. You are completely wrong on this one by the way as he picked the Suns to beat the Lakers in 6 in the Western Conference Finals. http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/suns-lakers


2008-2009 - predicted them to finish first in the Pacific and second in the West, they finished first in the West and won the championship

Why would you even mention that they won the championship here like it actually proves anything for you? In reality, he picked Lebron and the Cavs to win it all despite the Lakers being the more seasoned and proven team. Clearly one could argue that this was another example of him showing his bias against the Lakers because he picked a lesser team to beat them in the finals. In my opinion, I felt he was picking with his heart and not his brain when he picked the Cavs to go all the way in 2009.

BTW, you further prove my point by mentioning that Hollinger picked the Lakers to finish second in the west when they ended up finishing first. This is to me a fine example of him again making an anti-Lakers prediction. The Lakers in the previous season (2008) were the one seed even with Gasol only being on the team half the season and Bynum being injured for half the season. It stands to reason that with a Gasol being available the whole season, and a healthy Bynum...they should have been overwhelming favorites to once again be the one seed. Guess Hollinger didn't see it that way for some reason.


So 2011-12 he underrated them by 1 game, 2010-11 he way overrated them, 2009-10 he was right on, 2008-09 he underrated them by 1 seed.

1 seed is much different than one game. Predicting seeds is much easier than predicting games won, therefore the margin of error differs greatly. When predicting seeds, the margin of error is less and when predicting games it is greater. In 2009 you falsely make light of the fact that he was off by one seed. One seed could mean that he was off by 10 games. When evaluating a team as good as the Lakers were in 2009 and taking into account their proven track record up until then, any amateur internet blogger could have assessed that they would have been a 1-3 seed that year. Hollinger went with a 2 seed and he was wrong. Not to mention that he was wrong.

Again, his prediction in 2011-12 was his most accurate, but like I said, its all about the whole picture. You can't take just one accurate prediction as evidence that someone is a top dog in their field. We would have to look at his predictions as a whole and then assess if they are indeed right more often than not.

In 2010 he was just saving face by picking the Lakers and he didn't even pick them until the finals. He knew how foolish he looked in the previous season by being so vocal about the Cavs chances and having them not even make it to the finals. He also knew that KG was coming off a serious injury and would not be the same player he was back in 08. The Celtics shocked everyone that year by making it back to the finals. Something else that Hollinger didn't predict BTW.

Even more humorous, is how wrong your information was because in the Western Conference Finals that year, he picked the Suns to beat the Lakers in 6. http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/suns-lakers


So what makes you say he has an anti-Laker agenda? The one time he was significantly off in his prediction he overrated them.

You of course fail to mention that he picked Lebron and the Cavs to win it all in 2009. This was a very bold and homeristic prediction for the following reasons:

- The Cavs were not battle tested

- The Cavs had only won 45 games the previous year

- The one time they made it to the finals they were swept and the road they took to make it there was amongst the easiest in NBA history. Not to mention it was 2 seasons ago and the team was slightly different.

- Their 66 wins in the east that year were not as nearly as impressive as the Lakers 65 wins in the west. In fact, 65 wins in the west is significantly harder to pull of than 66 in the east and Hollinger being a stats guy knows this to be certain.

- The Lakers won both regular season match ups against the Cavs handily and without Bynum in the line up.

- Kobe had more experience at winning championships than did Lebron as he had 3 under his belt at the time. Not to mention, Kobe was the more seasoned veteran and still in his full prime.

- With the 2-3-2 format, home court advantage in the finals is not as strong as it normally is in the playoffs

With all of these things taken into account, it's clear that the Cavs would be heavy underdogs if they faced the Lakers in the finals. Therefore, for a credible stats guy like Hollinger to pick a in favor of an underdog like the Cavs, it must mean that there is more to his pick than the normal statistical analysis he claims to go by in all situations. It's safe to say that him picking the Cavs that year was more based on personal feelings than logic and reasoning. Hollinger is too smart to not take into account the things I mentioned above...he was clearly choosing with his heart and not his brain.

In closing, I would just like to go over some of his failed predictions over the years...

- In the 2010 Western Conference Finals, he picked the Suns over the Lakers.

- In the 09 Western Conference Finals, he picked the Nuggets in 6 over the Lakers.

- In the 2010 Western Conference Semi's, he picked the Lakers in 7 and the Lakers swept.

- In the 2010 First Round, he picked the Lakers in 7 and the Lakers won in 6.

- In 2008 he said that Lebron was better than Kobe and it wasn't even close.

- In 2009 he said that people would start to notice that Lebron is more comparable to Jordan than Kobe.

Still don't think this guy has an agenda?

I defy any one to sig bet me that the Lakers won't win more than 53 wins this season. Lets see if you all have enough faith in your little guru Hollinger to put your money where your mouth is. :cool:

DenButsu
10-15-2012, 01:45 AM
Hollinger is bias eversince, he hates the Lakers because of Kobe, and he hates Kobe because he is the main obstacle to LBJ's greatness.

If you had read the thread you'd have seen this:

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showpost.php?p=23928428&postcount=46

bholly
10-15-2012, 02:59 AM
Amos1er,
To answer the questions littered throughout your post:
I was using preseason predictions (ie the topic of this thread) and they are all listed accurately. I gave record predictions for the years they had them, and seed predictions for the years that that was all they had.

I wrote that they won in 2009 because I was presenting all the evidence in as consistent a way as possible - not just that which supports me. That you're surprised someone would present all evidence, and not just that which supports them, tells me everything I need to know about this conversation being a waste of my time.

If you're going to list the times he's picked against them in a series and been wrong and consider that evidence, you also have to mention the times he picked for them and they lost (picked them in 5 vs the Mavs in 2011), the times he overrated them (2011 first round) and the times he was right on (2012 vs Thunder, 2010 finals), etc. And those are just the ones I found in about 2 minutes of looking.

If you only look at the times he underrated them and was wrong, then of course it's going to look like he has a bias against them - but that's true for every single analyst and every single team, not just Hollinger and the Lakers. It's meaningless.
I could make a list of every single Sixers prediction I've ever made that has ended up underrating them, but that list wouldn't be evidence I have an anti-Sixers bias. You need all the evidence to prove a systematic bias.

Also I love how when he overrates them it's 'sun on a dog's arse once in a while' or an obvious pick, and when he underrates them it's 'proving your point'. Huge lol.

Anyway, given your shock at someone trying to have a reasoned conversation and consider all the evidence, and your obvious intention to stick to your point despite what any evidence shows, it's going to be a waste of my time arguing with you so I'm just not going to bother.
If you really want to actually analyse whether Hollinger has an anti-Lakers bias, and put forward all the evidence you can find in a non-biased way (ie repeat what you did above but without the meaningless emotive commentaries, and most importantly without just ignoring the stuff where he overrates them), then I'd love to see it and will engage you on it. A nice touch would be to include other media guys too - if it's just Hollinger underrating the Lakers then maybe that would be evidence of an anti-Lakers bias, while if it's all of them then maybe we could conclude that the Lakers have just overachieved relative to unbiased expectations. I think that'd be interesting.
But if you're just going to be like every other homer crying about a made up media bias against their favourite team, and present only the evidence that supports your position, then you're wasting everybody's time and I'd like to say good luck with the season and nice chatting with you.

Oh and here's the info about him beating Vegas (and everyone else) in his 2010-11 preseason predictions:
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/34476/john-hollinger-beat-vegas
http://weaksideawareness.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/accuracy-of-predictions-for-wins-in-nba-in-2010-11/

amos1er
10-15-2012, 05:32 AM
If you had read the thread you'd have seen this:

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showpost.php?p=23928428&postcount=46

Apparently you didn't see this: http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showpost.php?p=23961474&postcount=95

DenButsu
10-15-2012, 06:34 AM
Apparently you didn't see this: http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showpost.php?p=23961474&postcount=95

You're right, I hadn't. My post was actually in response to KBfrom8to24's post above yours, which was the last one in my browser when I posted. Had a bunch of tabs open at the time, and didn't refresh. So it ended up looking like it was in response to your longer post, which it wasn't.

At any rate, I'm with bholly on this one. It's just bad logic to use a selective, postdictive cherry picking of the results that support your claim of bias while ignoring the others.

And while I agree that 53 wins seems low for the Lakers, I'd also argue that people who claim Hollinger is biased really just don't understand his methodology well at all, or the heavy extent to which he relies on statistics -- which by definition leaves much less room for bias to even have the potential of being factored into his analysis. If you were making a solid case for his approach being flawed, or the stats he's using being too limited and/or misapplied, you'd be on stronger footing.

KnickaBocka.44
10-15-2012, 01:54 PM
Hollinger now has the Hawks (too high) and the Clippers (too low) as the 6th seeds in their respective conferences :facepalm:

Jroz
10-15-2012, 02:48 PM
stop it, everyone has an opinion. we just have to respect it and move on.

no matter how bold opinions are, these are nba analysts, nba stats guru who have been doing this all their careers. let them have their say.

Why do we have to respect his opinion..because he's a "professional nba analyst"? ..what a sheep.

Da Knicks
10-15-2012, 03:05 PM
NBA = Entertainment people


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvMG7mZGo04&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GewuhAx6o8&feature=endscreen&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pikd-9qqQ1c&feature=related

I really don't no how some of you guys can get so heated over this scripted soap opera.

this....

Spurred1
10-15-2012, 06:22 PM
People are terribly sensitive when it comes to Hollinger.

Hawkeye15
10-15-2012, 07:48 PM
People are terribly sensitive when it comes to Hollinger.

they really are, despite him being more accurate than vegas, or any other expert many times. He clearly writes this is for REGULAR season only, not who he thinks will win a title.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-15-2012, 08:02 PM
Why do we have to respect his opinion..because he's a "professional nba analyst"? ..what a sheep.

... Lol
Every nba analyst respects hollinget's opinion, as do majority of fans. I'll be a sheep and trust a person with the right credentials over anyone else.

He isn't god where he is 100% right, but based off of his calculations and predictions, it's not biased it's base off a simple formula.

And his predictions would be more accurate than you or I. Lol regardless of whether you think of yourself as a sheep or shepherd.

JJ_JKidd
10-15-2012, 08:16 PM
He predicted in his NBA Insider reveal that the Nuggets would finish at the 2 seed above the Thunder and Lakers. :facepalm:

Youve been in PSD for over a year now and you should know that 99.9999% of users here dont believe in his crap. Im one of them.

In other news,,

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 12:21 AM
He's by far the most accurate predictor ESPN has and he gets flaked for saying a young team that's ten deep is going to have a better record than a team that will likely need to take some on the chin and rest Nash, Kobe.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 01:37 AM
He's by far the most accurate predictor ESPN has and he gets flaked for saying a young team that's ten deep is going to have a better record than a team that will likely need to take some on the chin and rest Nash, Kobe.

Can you actually prove he is the most accurate or is this just opinion? Are you able to provide me with a list with the results of his predictions over the years in comparison to other top analysts? I would be willing to bet you that he isn't even the most accurate predictor on ESPN, let alone the entire basketball community.

bholly
10-16-2012, 02:06 AM
Can you actually prove he is the most accurate or is this just opinion? Are you able to provide me with a list with the results of his predictions over the years in comparison to other top analysts? I would be willing to bet you that he isn't even the most accurate predictor on ESPN, let alone the entire basketball community.

His pre-season predictions have been very very good:

http://weaksideawareness.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/nba-2011-2012-revisiting-predictions-for-wins/
http://weaksideawareness.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/accuracy-of-predictions-for-wins-in-nba-in-2010-11/
https://weaksideawareness.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/more-years-of-data-for-accuracy-of-win-predictions/

So yes, there is proof he is by far the best ESPN analyst at making preseason predictions.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 02:30 AM
His pre-season predictions have been very very good:

http://weaksideawareness.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/nba-2011-2012-revisiting-predictions-for-wins/
http://weaksideawareness.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/accuracy-of-predictions-for-wins-in-nba-in-2010-11/
https://weaksideawareness.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/more-years-of-data-for-accuracy-of-win-predictions/

So yes, there is proof he is by far the best ESPN analyst at making preseason predictions.

I looked at your references and didn't see how you could justify that Hollinger is by far the best ESPN analyst. I noticed that Bill Simmons was more accurate in your last citation. Last I checked, he was an ESPN analyst. Also, being a top ESPN analyst isn't really saying much. Joe Schaller put them all out.

Also, you only have 2 seasons worth of data...hardly a justifiable sample size.

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 02:47 AM
A 91 percent success rate is not something to ignore.

bholly
10-16-2012, 02:49 AM
2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12. That's 4 seasons. That's a pretty good sample size, considering it's probably all Hollinger's preseason record picks he's ever made.

He's at or near the top in three of the four seasons, and in the middle of the fourth. As the author said, "John Hollinger had two top seasons and one average so either he is really good at this game or very lucky." And that was before he finished very close to the top again last year.

I seriously don't see how you could argue he isn't based on that data. He finished way ahead of Simmons in 2010/11 and 2011/12, a bit ahead of him in his one bad season (2009/10), and one spot behind him in 2008/09.

If you seriously think, based on that data, that Simmons or any other ESPN analyst has performed better in preseason predictions the last few years, then you lose the right to talk about other people having biases.

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 02:51 AM
2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12. That's 4 seasons. That's a pretty good sample size, considering it's probably all Hollinger's preseason record picks he's ever made.

He's at or near the top in three of the four seasons, and in the middle of the fourth. As the author said, "John Hollinger had two top seasons and one average so either he is really good at this game or very lucky." And that was before he finished very close to the top again last year.

I seriously don't see how you could argue he isn't based on that data. He finished way ahead of Simmons in 2010/11 and 2011/12, a bit ahead of him in his one bad season (2009/10), and one spot behind him in 2008/09.

If you seriously think, based on that data, that Simmons or any other ESPN analyst has performed better in preseason predictions the last few years, then you lose the right to talk about other people having biases.


The guy you are arguing against is a Lakers fan. It's pretty obvious that his opinion is emotion driven at this point.

bholly
10-16-2012, 02:56 AM
Yeah, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth showing why he's wrong before other people start believing him.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-16-2012, 02:57 AM
honestly anyone hating on hollinger is delusional. lol

His credibility and track record speak for itself.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 03:03 AM
The guy you are arguing against is a Lakers fan. It's pretty obvious that his opinion is emotion driven at this point.

I could easily make an argument that your opinion is emotion driven as well. Nearly every person in the world has some sort of bias. You would be deceiving yourself if you said otherwise. We are all human at the end of the day. I don't know how you can actually prove that my opinion is more bias that yours. At the end of the day all you can do is make your best argument and people will still believe what they want to believe. But to say that my opinion is emoting driven and therefore is wrong is a total fallacy as we are both human beings and subject to emotional bias. Just as John Hollinger is too.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-16-2012, 03:04 AM
I could easily make an argument that your opinion is emotion driven as well. Nearly every person in the world has some sort of bias. You would be deceiving yourself if you said otherwise. We are all human at the end of the day. I don't know how you can actually prove that my opinion is more bias that yours. At the end of the day all you can do is make your best argument and people will still believe what they want to believe. But to say that my opinion is emoting driven and therefore is wrong is a total fallacy as we are both human beings and subject to emotional bias. Just as John Hollinger is too.

lol i dont think you've read some of hollinger's predictions if you think he is bias. lol

amos1er
10-16-2012, 03:06 AM
honestly anyone hating on hollinger is delusional. lol

His credibility and track record speak for itself.

What is this track record you speak of? In 2009 he picked the Cavs to win it all and was wrong. In 2011 he picked the Heat and was wrong there too. In 2010 he picked the Suns to take out the Lakers on the WCF...he was wrong. The only thing he was right about was in 2012 when the Heat won. But when you pick Lebron most of the time, you are bound to be right once. That give him an accuracy rating of 1/4. Each time he picked against the Lakers and in favor of whatever team Lebron was on. That to me hints that there could be some bias on his part in favor of Lebron and against Kobe and the Lakers.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 03:07 AM
lol i dont think you've read some of hollinger's predictions if you think he is bias. lol

Can you actually explain your opinion, or are you just going to continue to make blanket statements?

bholly
10-16-2012, 03:09 AM
What is this track record you speak of? In 2009 he picked the Cavs to win it all and was wrong. In 2011 he picked the Heat and was wrong there too. In 2010 he picked the Suns to take out the Lakers on the WCF...he was wrong. The only thing he was right about was in 2012 when the Heat won. But when you pick Lebron most of the time, you are bound to be right once. That give him an accuracy rating of 1/4. Each time he picked against the Lakers and in favor of whatever team Lebron was on. That to me hints that there could be some bias on his part in favor of Lebron and against Kobe and the Lakers.

Okay? So maybe he's bad at picking series matchups - none of us have bothered to gather full data on that so there's on way of knowing for sure.

But in preseason predictions or regular season record (ie the topic of this thread) he's by far the best ESPN has, and hasn't been outperformed consistently by anyone else either. Are you willing to admit that, or are you just walking away from that part of the conversation now that someone gave the data you asked for?

amos1er
10-16-2012, 03:14 AM
Yeah, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth showing why he's wrong before other people start believing him.

So far you have made some decent arguments, I'll give you that, but you have yet to convince me that Hollinger's opinion is really worth anything compared to the many expert basketball opinions out there. He is a statistical genius for sure, but his knowledge about basketballs intangibles is lacking IMO. Additionally, for anyone to say that he is completely free of human bias is a very hard notion to swallow. Why is this guy so special that he is able to make judgements completely absent of human bias? Even supreme court justices who are considered to be the most fair people in our nation admit to some element of bias in their decision making. How is it possible that they can still have traces of human bias, yet Hollinger cannot?

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-16-2012, 03:14 AM
you want me to explain to you how he uses stats and advanced stats to predict how the season would play out, to avoid biased predictions.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/34476/john-hollinger-beat-vegas

^ read that.

I know you're a lakers fan and get emotional over something so simple. he gets paid to do this, and you dont.
he does this for a living, his opinion is more credible than anything you or anyone else would come up with.

if you read that link it explains that he follows a formula, and whatever the answer shows he posts. whether its heat winning, losing, or whatever.

of course he said the heat would win in 2010, the whole world did.
lebron, wade, bosh. lebron the msot effecient player in the game, wade at that time second best player in the game, so obv the numbers were skewed in their favor.

he trusts numbers over opinions. strict hard core facts.

but to say he is biased based off of him choosing the celtics to win over the lakers is immature, and really pathetic on your part.

get over it dude.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-16-2012, 03:17 AM
he said the bulls would beat the heat with a healthy d rose, i obv disagree, but im not going to bash him because of his opinion, because he makes valid points.

lol you should learn to accept criticism from experts who study the game for a living.

dont be so arrogant, its not a good look especially with the way your fan base gets stereotyped.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 03:18 AM
Okay? So maybe he's bad at picking series matchups - none of us have bothered to gather full data on that so there's on way of knowing for sure.

But in preseason predictions or regular season record (ie the topic of this thread) he's by far the best ESPN has, and hasn't been outperformed consistently by anyone else either. Are you willing to admit that, or are you just walking away from that part of the conversation now that someone gave the data you asked for?

I will admit that he is among the best ESPN has to offer and that he is consistently in the top 3 or 4 as you said, but that still is not saying much IMO. What really bothers me honestly, is how Lebron/Miami bandwagon fans act like he is this supreme guru with some sort of other worldly knowledge who is by far the number one analyst over all his peer every single year. He is a smart guy when it comes to numbers for sure, but he is not the basketball analyst god that people make him out to be.

bholly
10-16-2012, 03:20 AM
So far you have made some decent arguments, I'll give you that, but you have yet to convince me that Hollinger's opinion is really worth anything compared to the many expert basketball opinions out there. He is a statistical genius for sure, but his knowledge about basketballs intangibles is lacking IMO. Additionally, for anyone to say that he is completely free of human bias is a very hard notion to swallow. Why is this guy so special that he is able to make judgements completely absent of human bias? Even supreme court justices who are considered to be the most fair people in our nation admit to some element of bias in their decision making. How is it possible that they can still have traces of human bias, yet Hollinger cannot?

I don't think anybody has claimed that he's inhumanly free from bias - just that he bases most of it on stats that he can't really manipulate (90-95% in his own words), and that if you want to claim he has a particular bias in the other 5-10% then the onus is on you to prove it (and just showing small parts of the data, like you did a couple pages back, doesn't do that).

Nobody's claiming he's a demigod or anything - all anyone has done in this thread has defend him against claims like these, which are how the whole conversation started:

Yup...he is wrong more than he is right. It is well known that his statistical analysis and predictions reflect his bias. Clearly he has an agenda which has been consistently visible in his predictions and analysis throughout the years. The only people who respect his opinions are Lebron fans and Laker haters...that should tell you everything you need to know. I wish I could make a good living and retain the title and status of "expert" despite being wrong most of the time. Sounds like a great gig, where do I sign up?

amos1er
10-16-2012, 03:22 AM
you want me to explain to you how he uses stats and advanced stats to predict how the season would play out, to avoid biased predictions.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/34476/john-hollinger-beat-vegas

^ read that.

I know you're a lakers fan and get emotional over something so simple. he gets paid to do this, and you dont.
he does this for a living, his opinion is more credible than anything you or anyone else would come up with.

if you read that link it explains that he follows a formula, and whatever the answer shows he posts. whether its heat winning, losing, or whatever.

of course he said the heat would win in 2010, the whole world did.
lebron, wade, bosh. lebron the msot effecient player in the game, wade at that time second best player in the game, so obv the numbers were skewed in their favor.

he trusts numbers over opinions. strict hard core facts.

but to say he is biased based off of him choosing the celtics to win over the lakers is immature, and really pathetic on your part.

get over it dude.

Lebron was not on the Heat in 2010 and no everyone did not pick them to win in 2011.

I am not getting emotional, I am just debating.

I seriously doubt that Hollinger is free of human bias. The only way that would be possible would be for him to be a robot.

Basketball is more than just numbers. If it truly a numbers game, than why do they bother to even play the games.

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 03:23 AM
To be frank, if you call Hollinger biased you are wrong.

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 03:25 AM
Lebron was not on the Heat in 2010 and no everyone did not pick them to win in 2011.

I am not getting emotional, I am just debating.

I seriously doubt that Hollinger is free of human bias. The only way that would be possible would be for him to be a robot.

Basketball is more than just numbers. If it truly a numbers game, than why do they bother to even play the games.

Because basketball is fun. Stats are a good gauge to predict things. They evaluate well, but they do not predict improvement or regression.

People have been trying to predict with plenty of stats before advanced ones. And to suggest the game is any less fun to watch because we have more accurate tools to predict is pretty ****ing dumb.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-16-2012, 03:26 AM
lol.. where are you getting this bs from that hollinger is always right?

All im saying is that his picks arent biased, it could be wrong, but it isnt biased.
its based off of a formula and stats, and hardcore data. And that anyone with a brain would trust his picks, because of his credibility.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 03:26 AM
I don't think anybody has claimed that he's inhumanly free from bias - just that he bases most of it on stats that he can't really manipulate (90-95% in his own words), and that if you want to claim he has a particular bias in the other 5-10% then the onus is on you to prove it (and just showing small parts of the data, like you did a couple pages back, doesn't do that).

Nobody's claiming he's a demigod or anything - all anyone has done in this thread has defend him against claims like these, which are how the whole conversation started:

Im_in_Mia_bish just claimed him to be free of human bias in the previous post. lol

I'm sure that he does base it mostly off stats as he has no real experience as a basketball player to draw from. Why else would anyone even consider taking him seriously.

I only show small parts of data because it would take too long to show over 10 years of predictions and frankly I don't have the time. lol

I only used data in relation to the original post of mine that you responded to. You gave me specific years and predictions and I gave my rebuttal based on those.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-16-2012, 03:27 AM
Lebron was not on the Heat in 2010 and no everyone did not pick them to win in 2011.

I am not getting emotional, I am just debating.

I seriously doubt that Hollinger is free of human bias. The only way that would be possible would be for him to be a robot.

Basketball is more than just numbers. If it truly a numbers game, than why do they bother to even play the games.

i don't think you read the link i sent you.. how is his human bias involved in a formula? explain pls..

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 03:28 AM
It's a moot point unless you can prove he is being biased. And it's not worth bringing up. All you are doing is trying to illustrate that he is biased against the Lakers, that's the implications.

That's ****ing horrible and wrong. Stop it.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 03:29 AM
lol.. where are you getting this bs from that hollinger is always right?

All im saying is that his picks arent biased, it could be wrong, but it isnt biased.
its based off of a formula and stats, and hardcore data. And that anyone with a brain would trust his picks, because of his credibility.

This is exactly what I mean.

How is it possible that everyone human being in existence has at least some traces of bias in their opinions, but Hollinger does not? The guy has to have a team that he roots for right? Doesn't every basketball fan? If he didn't have a team that he rooted for, I would doubt his credibility even more than I already do because anyone who truly loves the game of basketball has to have their personal preference when it come to what team they root for. Which I'm sure Hollinger does.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-16-2012, 03:30 AM
Im_in_Mia_bish just claimed him to be free of human bias in the previous post. lol

I'm sure that he does base it mostly off stats as he has no real experience as a basketball player to draw from. Why else would anyone even consider taking him seriously.

I only show small parts of data because it would take too long to show over 10 years of predictions and frankly I don't have the time. lol

I only used data in relation to the original post of mine that you responded to. You gave me specific years and predictions and I gave my rebuttal based on those.

hold on. I claimed his picks arent biased, but i didnt claim that they are 100% right....

he follows a formula, and whatever shows up, he jots that down.

he isnt god that hes always right, he might even be 40% right, idc. the point is his picks are used by stats and advanced stats, he doesnt make predictions based of his bias opinion..

pls read the link i posted..

amos1er
10-16-2012, 03:30 AM
It's a moot point unless you can prove he is being biased. And it's not worth bringing up. All you are doing is trying to illustrate that he is biased against the Lakers, that's the implications.

That's ****ing horrible and wrong. Stop it.

Why is it so horrible and wrong? It's just my opinion.

bholly
10-16-2012, 03:31 AM
To be fair, he does do subjective stuff too - including the 5-10% part of these picks that he said came down to his own tweaking - so there is room for a bias there, it's just that a) it's on the people claiming it to prove it, and b) it's likely either so small that it hasn't hurt his predictive success or just happens to for/against teams that have over/underperformed so that it's actually ended up helping him - in which case it's probably impossible to prove.

I don't think it's fair to claim he definitely doesn't have any team or player biases (except with the stuff that really is just pure stats), but it is fair to say he almost certainly doesn't have a bias significant enough to devalue his predictions - because bias or not, his picks have been the best over the years.

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 03:32 AM
This is exactly what I mean.

How is it possible that everyone human being in existence has at least some traces of bias in their opinions, but Hollinger does not? The guy has to have a team that he roots for right? Doesn't every basketball fan? If he didn't have a team that he rooted for, I would doubt his credibility even more than I already do because anyone who truly loves the game of basketball has to have their personal preference when it come to what team they root for. Which I'm sure Hollinger does.

You would doubt someone more if they didn't have a bias towards a team?

Seriously, just stop. You are biased against someone who uses an algorithm free from human bias.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-16-2012, 03:32 AM
This is exactly what I mean.

How is it possible that everyone human being in existence has at least some traces of bias in their opinions, but Hollinger does not? The guy has to have a team that he roots for right? Doesn't every basketball fan? If he didn't have a team that he rooted for, I would doubt his credibility even more than I already do because anyone who truly loves the game of basketball has to have their personal preference when it come to what team they root for. Which I'm sure Hollinger does.

he follows a formula, i dont see how his bias has anything to do with it..

to use any formula, all you need to do is put in numbers, and solve.

you get an answer, and you compare the numbers from all the teams.

his analysis on teams strengths and weaknesses is never a def answer, just wondering, have you read any of his articles on Espn Insider?

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 03:37 AM
Why is it so horrible and wrong? It's just my opinion.

My opinion is that the Bobcats are the best team in the NBA.


It's important to realize when discussing your opinion doesn't matter. Things need to be based off of facts and than you can draw conclusions.

You have no facts and your opinion is idle speculation.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 03:39 AM
hold on. I claimed his picks arent biased, but i didnt claim that they are 100% right....

he follows a formula, and whatever shows up, he jots that down.

he isnt god that hes always right, he might even be 40% right, idc. the point is his picks are used by stats and advanced stats, he doesnt make predictions based of his bias opinion..

pls read the link i posted..

I did and I also read this one where you again said that his picks aren't bias. Thats all I'm saying. Obviously they aren't 100% right. I can't hold anyone to that standard.

You claim that because he bases so much off advanced stats, which are non-bias in nature, that his predictions will therefore come out non-bais too. So then is it not possible that its the personal interpretation of these stats can be based off bias even though the stats themselves aren't?

amos1er
10-16-2012, 03:45 AM
My opinion is that the Bobcats are the best team in the NBA.


It's important to realize when discussing your opinion doesn't matter. Things need to be based off of facts and than you can draw conclusions.

You have no facts and your opinion is idle speculation.

Strawman argument.

You said it is "horrible" and "wrong" for me to be of the opinion that Hollinger could possibly be bias in his opinions. You were bringing morals into the discussion and I asked you why you felt it was morally wrong to question Hollingers intentions. You then respond with the fact that my opinion doesn't matter regardless because it's not based off facts...which I have already provided in previous pages BTW.

If my opinion is only "idle speculation", as you put it, then why isn't yours? I have yet to see you bring any sort of concrete evidence to this discussion.

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 03:45 AM
I did and I also read this one where you again said that his picks aren't bias. Thats all I'm saying. Obviously they aren't 100% right. I can't hold anyone to that standard.

You claim that because he bases so much off advanced stats, which are non-bias in nature, that his predictions will therefore come out non-bais too. So then is it not possible that its the personal interpretation of these stats can be based off bias even though the stats themselves aren't?

You could replace what you just said with the words incoherent ******** and it would have made as much sense.

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 03:46 AM
Strawman argument.

You said it is "horrible" and "wrong" for me to be of the opinion that Hollinger could possibly be bias in his opinions. You were bringing morals into the discussion and I asked you why you felt it was morally wrong to question Hollingers intentions. You then respond with the fact that my opinion doesn't matter regardless because it's not based off facts...which I have already provided in previous pages BTW.

If my opinion is only "idle speculation", as you put it, then why isn't yours? I have yet to see you bring any sort of concrete evidence to this discussion.

lol Dude, what you did was a strawman, not me. I never brought morals. When I said horrible and wrong I meant dumb.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 04:05 AM
he follows a formula, i dont see how his bias has anything to do with it..

to use any formula, all you need to do is put in numbers, and solve.

you get an answer, and you compare the numbers from all the teams.

his analysis on teams strengths and weaknesses is never a def answer, just wondering, have you read any of his articles on Espn Insider?

Is he imputing numbers into a formula when he picked the Cavs to win it all back in 2009?

If so, can you tell me about this formula and why it is so flawless?

I have read random articles of his over the years. I know all about his advanced stats. I have also heard him make comments back in 2008 where he specifically said that Lebron is better than Kobe and it isn't even close. He was basing that off of PER mostly. He is only looking at the stats that prove his point while ignoring other evidence that doesn't. That is why I feel he has an anti-Laker bias. He usually always picks against the Lakers in big match ups and is wrong, and picks Lebrons teams in big match ups and is wrong. For such a statistical genius to constantly pick in favor of one player or team over the other while being wrong is enough to show a trend that could possibly lead one to think there is some bias in his analysis.

In 2009 he picked the Cavs to go all the way. He was wrong. (This pick is in favor of Lebron)

In 2009 he picked the Lakers to lose to the Nuggets in the WCF. He was wrong. (This pick was against Kobe and the Lakers)

In 2010 he picked the Cavs to beat the Celtics in the eastern semi's. He was wrong. (This pick was in favor of Lebron)

In 2010 he picked the Suns to beat the Lakers in the WCF. He was wrong. (This pick was against Kobe and the Lakers)

In 2011 he picked the Heat to go all the way. He was wrong. (This pick was in favor of Lebron)

In 2011 he picked the Lakers to lose to the Thunder in the WCF. Invalid prediction, because the matchup never happened. Still, it was against Kobe and the Lakers. A healthy Lakers team would have been favored against OKC, but Hollinger still picked against them.

In 2012 he picked the Lakers would lose to the Thunder, he was right. This pick was against Kobe and the Lakers. He is bound to get one right seeing as how he picks against them every year. lol

In 2012 he once again picked the Heat to go all the way. He was right. This pick was in favor of Lebron. Again, he is bound to be right if he picks in favor of Lebron every year, but overall he was wrong more than he was right during this span.

He was 2/7 in his picks directly relating to Kobe and Lebron when it came to major games and championship aspirations. For a stats guy like Hollinger to go 29%, there must be some bias present when making major predictions in direct relation to Kobe and Lebron. Especially when the trend was consistently against Kobe every time and in favor of Lebron everytime.

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 04:08 AM
You do realize why his regular season predictions are more accurate than his post season, right? Because the playoffs are a ****ing crapshoot. It's random. There is a lot of dumb luck. There is a small sample size.

Anybody who knows a damn realizes that regular season predictions for a full season is more indicative of where you are at as a predictor.

And someone who complained about sample size earlier is using seven examples to say he is biased against Kobe. That's abject nonsense.

And yes, Lebron is better than Kobe, that's not a bias, that was a god damned fact.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 04:10 AM
lol Dude, what you did was a strawman, not me. I never brought morals. When I said horrible and wrong I meant dumb.

When you used the word "horrible" it threw me off. Also the context wasn't very clear.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 04:16 AM
You do realize why his regular season predictions are more accurate than his post season, right? Because the playoffs are a ****ing crapshoot. It's random. There is a lot of dumb luck. There is a small sample size.

Anybody who knows a damn realizes that regular season predictions for a full season is more indicative of where you are at as a predictor.

And someone who complained about sample size earlier is using seven examples to say he is biased against Kobe. That's abject nonsense.

And yes, Lebron is better than Kobe, that's not a bias, that was a god damned fact.

What a coincidence that a guy who is so adamant about stating that Lebron is better that Kobe is also so passionate about defending John Hollinger's credibility.

And people wonder why I often make a correlation between Hollinger supporters and Lebron nutthuggers/Kobe haters. :rolleyes:

You are saying that there is more "dumb luck" in the post season than in the regular season? What can you actually base that off of? In the playoffs, it's the best teams playing a their best in a best of 7 series...what could be more fair accurate than that?

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 04:19 AM
The regular season, sherlock.

No, I am a big fan of Kobe and I think he is ****ing hilarious. It's not "hating" to say Lebron is better. I don't like Lebron, I don't even like to watch him play. But he is heads and toes better.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 04:21 AM
You could replace what you just said with the words incoherent ******** and it would have made as much sense.

Don't blame me if you aren't capable of comprehending complex sentences. I already feel that I dumb down my writing enough when I post on here, I won't go any further. Feel free to no longer respond to me if you can't keep up.

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 04:24 AM
Don't blame me if you aren't capable of comprehending complex sentences. I already feel that I dumb down my writing enough when I post on here, I won't go any further. Feel free to no longer respond to me if you can't keep up.

That's what pretentious cocksuckers say.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 04:28 AM
The regular season, sherlock.

No, I am a big fan of Kobe and I think he is ****ing hilarious. It's not "hating" to say Lebron is better. I don't like Lebron, I don't even like to watch him play. But he is heads and toes better.

Obviously Lebron is better now, but back in 2008 and 2009 he clearly wasn't, yet back in 2008 Hollinger said that Lebron was the better player and it wasn't even close. He then went on to reflect that opinion in his major post season predictions regarding the two players by picking in favor of whatever team Lebron was on and picking against Kobe and the Lakers. He was wrong 3/4 of the time.

Post season is more important than regular season as it will inevitably determine who the champion will be, therefore those predictions weigh more heavily than ones made about the regular season, which BTW Hollinger is not even close to being the best in his field at anyways. Maybe he is a top BSPN junkie, but that really doesn't hold much clout.

If you really have so much faith in Hollingers regular season predictions, than why not sig be me that the Lakers won't win more than the 53 games he predicted them too.

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 04:30 AM
It's more important in the fact it decides the champion, but it's not more important for people who do predictions. To get accurate predictions you need a large sample size. That's what the regular season provides. It's why everyone who is good at predicting it vastly superior at predicting the regular season opposed to the post season.

Because Sig bets are ********.

I also hope you realize that Hollinger thinks the Lakers have a much better chance in the post season than the Nuggets. You know, cause he is biased against the Lakers.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 04:36 AM
That's what pretentious cocksuckers say.


Wow...really. This coming from a guy who has been consistently using Abusive ad hominem personal attacks against me throughout the entire debate. ok

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


Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's personal character, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument, whereas mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.

Examples:

"Candidate George's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. He was caught cheating on his taxes in 2003."
"What would Margaret know about fixing cars? She is a woman."
"What makes you so smart and all-knowing that you can deny God's existence? You haven't even finished school."
"If Dr. Schweitzer is such a skilled heart surgeon, then why was he arrested for skinny-dipping in the ball pit at Chuck E. Cheese's?!"
"Your fashion opinion isn't valid; you can't even afford new shoes."
"Your exposition is highly correct and valid, but you don't have enough academic certification." (an example of the Credential fallacy)[7]

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 04:38 AM
You are misinterpreting what ad hominems are. The fallacy implies I think you are wrong because you are dumb. I am saying you are dumb because you are wrong. Do you see the difference?

DenButsu
10-16-2012, 04:39 AM
To be fair, he does do subjective stuff too - including the 5-10% part of these picks that he said came down to his own tweaking - so there is room for a bias there, it's just that a) it's on the people claiming it to prove it, and b) it's likely either so small that it hasn't hurt his predictive success or just happens to for/against teams that have over/underperformed so that it's actually ended up helping him - in which case it's probably impossible to prove.

I don't think it's fair to claim he definitely doesn't have any team or player biases (except with the stuff that really is just pure stats), but it is fair to say he almost certainly doesn't have a bias significant enough to devalue his predictions - because bias or not, his picks have been the best over the years.

Biases may seep in, and we can discuss that possibility in reasonable terms.

But let's keep it real: that's not what amos1er is really claiming here, and there's no reason or objectivity about it. He's on a full-on shadow conspiracy trip that Hollinger is out to get Kobe and the Lakers because he really really hates them. Which is patently ridiculous.

Anyone who follows Hollinger on twitter and reads his in-game tweets -- where he's not publishing formally and is pretty candid about what he's ovserving -- can pretty easily understand that he approaches every game fairly objectively. Which is not to say that he doesn't have opinions about teams or players (obviously, he does), but he certainly doesn't have any sort of sinister hit job agenda.

All this is about is hurt feelings. "I think my team is the best. He disagrees. Therefore, he's the enemy." That's what all this is about.

If I had the same approach, I'd have hated him during the Melo-AI era for "disparaging" the Nuggets, rather than recognizing that his methodology affords less adoration for inefficient players than their superstar status usually earns them.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 04:40 AM
It's more important in the fact it decides the champion, but it's not more important for people who do predictions. To get accurate predictions you need a large sample size. That's what the regular season provides. It's why everyone who is good at predicting it vastly superior at predicting the regular season opposed to the post season.

Because Sig bets are ********.

I also hope you realize that Hollinger thinks the Lakers have a much better chance in the post season than the Nuggets. You know, cause he is biased against the Lakers.

Yet he still will pick in favor of Lebron and against Kobe and the Lakers when it comes to winning the championship, like he has done for the past 5 seasons where he was wrong 71% of the time

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 04:42 AM
Biases may seep in, and we can discuss that possibility in reasonable terms.

But let's keep it real: that's not what amos1er is really claiming here, and there's no reason or objectivity about it. He's on a full-on shadow conspiracy trip that Hollinger is out to get Kobe and the Lakers because he really really hates them. Which is patently ridiculous.

Anyone who follows Hollinger on twitter and reads his in-game tweets -- where he's not publishing formally and is pretty candid about what he's ovserving -- can pretty easily understand that he approaches every game fairly objectively. Which is not to say that he doesn't have opinions about teams or players (obviously, he does), but he certainly doesn't have any sort of sinister hit job agenda.

All this is about is hurt feelings. "I think my team is the best. He disagrees. Therefore, he's the enemy." That's what all this is about.

If I had the same approach, I'd have hated him during the Melo-AI era for "disparaging" the Nuggets, rather than recognizing that his methodology affords less adoration for inefficient players than their superstar status usually earns them.

.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 04:45 AM
Biases may seep in, and we can discuss that possibility in reasonable terms.

But let's keep it real: that's not what amos1er is really claiming here, and there's no reason or objectivity about it. He's on a full-on shadow conspiracy trip that Hollinger is out to get Kobe and the Lakers because he really really hates them. Which is patently ridiculous.

Anyone who follows Hollinger on twitter and reads his in-game tweets -- where he's not publishing formally and is pretty candid about what he's ovserving -- can pretty easily understand that he approaches every game fairly objectively. Which is not to say that he doesn't have opinions about teams or players (obviously, he does), but he certainly doesn't have any sort of sinister hit job agenda.

All this is about is hurt feelings. "I think my team is the best. He disagrees. Therefore, he's the enemy." That's what all this is about.

If I had the same approach, I'd have hated him during the Melo-AI era for "disparaging" the Nuggets, rather than recognizing that his methodology affords less adoration for inefficient players than their superstar status usually earns them.

How then do you explain him picking whatever team Lebron was on the past 4 seasons to win it all and being wrong most of the time in the process?

If he is such a stats genius, how come he is consistently in favor of one player and against the other while a the same time being wrong on both accounts the majority of the time?

Again:

In 2009 he picked the Cavs to go all the way. He was wrong. (This pick is in favor of Lebron)

In 2009 he picked the Lakers to lose to the Nuggets in the WCF. He was wrong. (This pick was against Kobe and the Lakers)

In 2010 he picked the Cavs to beat the Celtics in the eastern semi's. He was wrong. (This pick was in favor of Lebron)

In 2010 he picked the Suns to beat the Lakers in the WCF. He was wrong. (This pick was against Kobe and the Lakers)

In 2011 he picked the Heat to go all the way. He was wrong. (This pick was in favor of Lebron)

In 2011 he picked the Lakers to lose to the Thunder in the WCF. Invalid prediction, because the matchup never happened. Still, it was against Kobe and the Lakers. A healthy Lakers team would have been favored against OKC, but Hollinger still picked against them.

In 2012 he picked the Lakers would lose to the Thunder, he was right. This pick was against Kobe and the Lakers. He is bound to get one right seeing as how he picks against them every year. lol

In 2012 he once again picked the Heat to go all the way. He was right. This pick was in favor of Lebron. Again, he is bound to be right if he picks in favor of Lebron every year, but overall he was wrong more than he was right during this span.

He was 2/7 in his picks directly relating to Kobe and Lebron when it came to major games and championship aspirations. For a stats guy like Hollinger to go 29%, there must be some bias present when making major predictions in direct relation to Kobe and Lebron. Especially when the trend was consistently against Kobe every time and in favor of Lebron everytime.

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 04:50 AM
Playoffs are a crapshoot. Predictions in the playoffs are inherently going to be more off base than regular season by its very nature. Using playoff predictions to say he is biased is you grasping for straws. Not only that, but those aren't even head to head match ups between the Lebron lead teams and Kobe, which makes this whole argument even more dumb.

I predicted my A's to lose to the Tigers in the ALDS, I must be biased against my own team.

bholly
10-16-2012, 05:01 AM
Biases may seep in, and we can discuss that possibility in reasonable terms.

But let's keep it real: that's not what amos1er is really claiming here, and there's no reason or objectivity about it. He's on a full-on shadow conspiracy trip that Hollinger is out to get Kobe and the Lakers because he really really hates them. Which is patently ridiculous.

Anyone who follows Hollinger on twitter and reads his in-game tweets -- where he's not publishing formally and is pretty candid about what he's ovserving -- can pretty easily understand that he approaches every game fairly objectively. Which is not to say that he doesn't have opinions about teams or players (obviously, he does), but he certainly doesn't have any sort of sinister hit job agenda.

All this is about is hurt feelings. "I think my team is the best. He disagrees. Therefore, he's the enemy." That's what all this is about.

If I had the same approach, I'd have hated him during the Melo-AI era for "disparaging" the Nuggets, rather than recognizing that his methodology affords less adoration for inefficient players than their superstar status usually earns them.

Oh, absolutely, I agree with all of this.
I wasn't defending what amos1er's been saying at all, I was just disagreeing with people taking it too far in the other direction as a response. Partly because I felt bad when it became that obvious that his argument was truly dead and buried and figured the only way to end it was to soften the stance and give him a chance to save some face, and partly because I felt like I had to respond to absolutes like "To be frank, if you call Hollinger biased you are wrong" given I had just said a few posts before that nobody was claiming he's proven to be completely bias-free.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 05:01 AM
Biases may seep in, and we can discuss that possibility in reasonable terms.

But let's keep it real: that's not what amos1er is really claiming here, and there's no reason or objectivity about it. He's on a full-on shadow conspiracy trip that Hollinger is out to get Kobe and the Lakers because he really really hates them. Which is patently ridiculous.

Anyone who follows Hollinger on twitter and reads his in-game tweets -- where he's not publishing formally and is pretty candid about what he's ovserving -- can pretty easily understand that he approaches every game fairly objectively. Which is not to say that he doesn't have opinions about teams or players (obviously, he does), but he certainly doesn't have any sort of sinister hit job agenda.

All this is about is hurt feelings. "I think my team is the best. He disagrees. Therefore, he's the enemy." That's what all this is about.

If I had the same approach, I'd have hated him during the Melo-AI era for "disparaging" the Nuggets, rather than recognizing that his methodology affords less adoration for inefficient players than their superstar status usually earns them.


BTW, I never once implied that he had a sinister job agenda nor did I allude to any sort of conspiracy theory. I simply said that based off the predictions I have seen out of him over the past years in relation to Lebron, Kobe, and the Lakers, there is a consistent trend that has led me and many other Laker fans to feel there may be a bias agenda going on. Whether that bias is a conscious effort on his part, I can't say for certain and is irrelevant to the point I am making.

All I am saying is that I have noticed a consistent trend in his predictions that favor Leborn and discredit Kobe and the Lakers. For the most part he has been wrong on both accounts. I stand firmly in my the notion that it's impossible for Hollinger to be completely free of bias when analyzing players and making predictions for certain team no matter how how much he swears up and down that it's entirely statistical based. That said, it's completely possible that he has a subconscious bias that quite possibly could effect the outcome of his predictions and analysis and based on the trend I have observed over the years, this bias is either directed against the Lakers or in favor of Lebron. The two seem to go hand and hand lol. That is more along the lines of what I am getting at.

bholly
10-16-2012, 05:11 AM
postseason picks, 2/7 stuff, etc

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, you're wasting everyone's time with this data if you omit the stuff where he picks for the Lakers and is wrong (ie vs Dallas last year, and other instances I pointed out where he overrated them).
2/7 isn't a meaningful stat if it's half the data, and it isn't evidence of a bias unless you compare it to other peoples' picks of the same series. Maybe some of those series just went a different way to what an unbiased person would pick - there is a huge amount of uncertainty in these things (hence having picks in the first place).

On top of that, even if there was some significant stat like that, and even if it was just him getting it wrong, that still wouldn't necessarily prove an anti-Lakers bias - maybe his model just overrates regular season record (LBJ's teams have had better records than Kobe's each of the years you mention), or maybe he has a small-forward bias, or maybe he's swayed by the MVP trophy. That isn't Lakers or LBJ bias, you just think it is because you're a Laker fan and are looking for anti-Lakers biases.
How have his predictions been for other teams? Are there other teams he's biased against that you've noticed? Or do you concede you only really notice his record with regard to the Lakers?

amos1er
10-16-2012, 05:12 AM
Oh, absolutely, I agree with all of this.
I wasn't defending what amos1er's been saying at all, I was just disagreeing with people taking it too far in the other direction as a response. Partly because I felt bad when it became that obvious that his argument was truly dead and buried and figured the only way to end it was to soften the stance and give him a chance to save some face, and partly because I felt like I had to respond to absolutes like "To be frank, if you call Hollinger biased you are wrong" given I had just said a few posts before that nobody was claiming he's proven to be completely bias-free.

I will admit that you were the only one so far that made a decent argument. I wouldn't agree that my argument was truly dead at all as the only good point you made was about this being mainly about pre-season predictions. In that, you do have some clout, but when it comes to some of Hollingers playoff predictions over the past 4 seasons being mostly wrong and being overwhelmingly in favor of the teams Lebron played while contrastingly being against Kobe and the Lakers, you have yet to counter me with anything substantial and really don't have a leg to stand on. But again, your saving grace is that the original point of the thread was pre-season predictions.

bholly
10-16-2012, 05:19 AM
BTW, I never once implied that he had a sinister job agenda nor did I allude to any sort of conspiracy theory.


Clearly he has an agenda which has been consistently visible in his predictions and analysis throughout the years.

Still don't think this guy has an agenda?

So what sort of agenda were you saying he has, if not a sinister hit-job one (ie one where he's trying to burn the Lakers)?

amos1er
10-16-2012, 05:20 AM
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, you're wasting everyone's time with this data if you omit the stuff where he picks for the Lakers and is wrong (ie vs Dallas last year, and other instances I pointed out where he overrated them).
2/7 isn't a meaningful stat if it's half the data, and it isn't evidence of a bias unless you compare it to other peoples' picks of the same series. Maybe some of those series just went a different way to what an unbiased person would pick - there is a huge amount of uncertainty in these things (hence having picks in the first place).

On top of that, even if there was some significant stat like that, and even if it was just him getting it wrong, that still wouldn't necessarily prove an anti-Lakers bias - maybe his model just overrates regular season record (LBJ's teams have had better records than Kobe's each of the years you mention), or maybe he has a small-forward bias, or maybe he's swayed by the MVP trophy. That isn't Lakers or LBJ bias, you just think it is because you're a Laker fan and are looking for anti-Lakers biases.
How have his predictions been for other teams? Are there other teams he's biased against that you've noticed? Or do you concede you only really notice his record with regard to the Lakers?

If his model was truly based on regular season record, than he would have favored the Lakers in 2009 as their 65 wins in the west were more impressive than The Cavs 66 wins in the east. Hollinger is smart enough to know that the eastern conference is easier than the west and is more than capable of handicapping the two conferences accordingly. Also, most importantly, if he is basing it mostly off regular season than he couldn't ignore the fact that the Lakers beat the Cavs handily in both regular season match ups. Statistically, the team that gets the better of the other in the individual regular season match up, wins in the finals nearly all of the time if they happen to face off there. A stats guy like Hollinger knows this, yet he still picked the Cavs.

DenButsu
10-16-2012, 05:20 AM
BTW, I never once implied that he had a sinister job agenda nor did I allude to any sort of conspiracy theory. I simply said that based off the predictions I have seen out of him over the past years in relation to Lebron, Kobe, and the Lakers, there is a consistent trend that has led me and many other Laker fans to feel there may be a bias agenda going on. Whether that bias is a conscious effort on his part, I can't say for certain and is irrelevant to the point I am making.

All I am saying is that I have noticed a consistent trend in his predictions that favor Leborn and discredit Kobe and the Lakers. For the most part he has been wrong on both accounts. I stand firmly in my the notion that it's impossible for Hollinger to be completely free of bias when analyzing players and making predictions for certain team no matter how how much he swears up and down that it's entirely statistical based. That said, it's completely possible that he has a subconscious bias that quite possibly could effect the outcome of his predictions and analysis and based on the trend I have observed over the years, this bias is either directed against the Lakers or in favor of Lebron. The two seem to go hand and hand lol. That is more along the lines of what I am getting at.

But when bholly then presented you with the factual record of Hollinger's predictions, which directly contradicts your perception of a trend of bias, but to the contrary clearly shows that at various times he has over-, under- and correctly estimated the Lakers' performance, what happened? You didn't admit that you may have been wrong, you went fishing for other ways to defend your claim of bias. So maybe you never said "sinister", but your reaction to evidence is exactly the same as that of a conspiracy theorist: To dispute it, to ignore it, to pretty much do anything you can to deny the facts which are right there before you.

I mean it really is pretty silly when it comes down to it. His work is closely scrutinized by the best basketball minds in the business, and he knows it. The potential damage to his reputation as an analyist if he did show consistent signs of biase against particular teams (and they would be noticed) would FAR outweigh any potential benefit he might gain from... well, I have no idea what the upside would be, which is part of why none of this really makes sense.

bholly
10-16-2012, 05:23 AM
I will admit that you were the only one so far that made a decent argument. I wouldn't agree that my argument was truly dead at all as the only good point you made was about this being mainly about pre-season predictions. In that, you do have some clout, but when it comes to some of Hollingers playoff predictions over the past 4 seasons being mostly wrong and being overwhelmingly in favor of the teams Lebron played while contrastingly being against Kobe and the Lakers, you have yet to counter me with anything substantial and really don't have a leg to stand on. But again, your saving grace is that the original point of the thread was pre-season predictions.

That's not my only saving grace. I also have the fact that every time you try and post his postseason stats you ignore the times he's overrated them (even though I've pointed some out a few times), and you ignore how other people did in picking those same series (even though you thought this was important when talking about preseason picks).
My leg to stand on is that you haven't done anything to prove any sort of anti-Laker pro-LBJ bias, you've just given a few examples of him being wrong and ignored everything else.
Again, the onus is on you to prove a bias if you want to claim one and not have people argue with you - just like you thought the onus was on everyone else to prove he's the best at these preseason predictions. As I recall, you wanted a big sample size, all the data, and comparisons with other analysts. So where's that proof for your claim?

amos1er
10-16-2012, 05:29 AM
So what sort of agenda were you saying he has, if not a sinister hit-job one (ie one where he's trying to burn the Lakers)?

I just feel that he has a bias that manifests itself when picking in situations where he has to lean one way or another in direct relations to teams Lebron plays for and the Lakers.

It is most likely a subconscious bias. Usually logical numbers guys like Hollinger are way to prideful to admit to any sort of bias no matter how obvious it would be to outside observers. But no one in the world is capable of fully hiding their subconscious, it will show no matter how much you consciously deny it. That is a much more likely scenario than any kind of conspiracy theory on my part that DenButsu felt I was alluding to.

Hollinger has to have his personal favorites, everybody does no matter how much they deny it. Unless Hollinger is a robot or something.

bholly
10-16-2012, 05:30 AM
I mean it really is pretty silly when it comes down to it. His work is closely scrutinized by the best basketball minds in the business, and he knows it. The potential damage to his reputation as an analyist if he did show consistent signs of biase against particular teams (and they would be noticed) would FAR outweigh any potential benefit he might gain from... well, I have no idea what the upside would be, which is part of why none of this really makes sense.

1000x this.


If his model was truly based on regular season record, than he would have favored the Lakers in 2009 as their 65 wins in the west were more impressive than The Cavs 66 wins in the east. Hollinger is smart enough to know that the eastern conference is easier than the west and is more than capable of handicapping the two conferences accordingly. Also, most importantly, if he is basing it mostly off regular season than he couldn't ignore the fact that the Lakers beat the Cavs handily in both regular season match ups. Statistically, the team that gets the better of the other in the individual regular season match up, wins in the finals nearly all of the time if they happen to face off there. A stats guy like Hollinger knows this, yet he still picked the Cavs.

I'm not saying that's what his model is based on - I've never seen it, so how could I know? - I'm just saying there are other plausible possibilities other than having an anti-Laker bias. Regular season record was just the first one that came to mind. There are plenty of things other than bias that you could include in a model that could lead to some teams getting overrated and others getting underrated.
Last year for example he way overrated the Sixers a few times because his model weighted points differential more than record, which fell apart a bit with the Sixers because of how bad we are in late game situations. It doesn't mean he has a pro-Sixers bias, it just meant the Sixers were such that his completely unbiased model overrated them.

As an aside, have you got stats on the claim about the teams winning reg season matchups winning nearly all of the time in the finals? I haven't got the time to search for it right now, but I think that's actually one of those things that has been shown to be surprisingly untrue - that the reg season form book goes out the window, statistically speaking, in the finals. I'll try find it tomorrow.

bholly
10-16-2012, 05:37 AM
I just feel that he has a bias that manifests itself when picking in situations where he has to lean one way or another in direct relations to teams Lebron plays for and the Lakers.

It is most likely a subconscious bias. Usually logical numbers guys like Hollinger are way to prideful to admit to any sort of bias no matter how obvious it would be to outside observers. But no one in the world is capable of fully hiding their subconscious, it will show no matter how much you consciously deny it. That is a much more likely scenario than any kind of conspiracy theory on my part that DenButsu felt I was alluding to.

Hollinger has to have his personal favorites, everybody does no matter how much they deny it. Unless Hollinger is a robot or something.

And here's what everyone in this thread is saying to you:


I just feel that amos1er has a bias that manifests itself when reading and interpreting and remembering picks that have to lean one way or another in direct relations to teams Lebron plays for and the Lakers.

It is most likely a subconscious bias (or at least stronger than he consciously admits). Usually fans supporting a team for so long and digging so deep into an argument are way to prideful to admit to any sort of bias no matter how obvious it would be to outside observers. But no one in the world is capable of fully hiding their subconscious, it will show no matter how much you consciously deny it. That is a much more likely scenario than any kind of bias in the predictions of the professional who bases things on stats and whose reputation and (so far significant) success are highly dependent on the accuracy of his predictions.

Amos1er obviously has his personal favorites, everybody does no matter how much they deny it. Unless he is a robot or something.

See what we're getting at? Maybe Hollinger has a huge Lakers bias that makes him pick against them, or maybe you have a huge pro-Lakers bias that makes see bias every time someone picks against them.

bholly
10-16-2012, 05:48 AM
Managed to find Hollinger's comments on reg season series thing. This is from last year's playoff predictions (http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2012/story/_/page/PERDiem-120427/nba-playoffs-predicting-every-round)


FIRST ROUND

The historical rule of thumb for first-round series is very important: If you don't have home-court advantage and you didn't at least split your season series, you can pretty much forget about advancing. In the last 53 instances of this, the home-court team is 51-2.

The two exceptions this century were in bizarre circumstances: In 2009, an injury-riddled (and basically coach-less) Denver team lost to a Utah team that finished with the same record and a superior point differential, and a San Antonio team that had a major point differential advantage (plus-5.1 to plus-2.7) but finished five games worse than Dallas knocked off the Mavs.

That's the list. The big recent first-round upsets -- Memphis and Golden State winning as No. 8 seeds, for instance -- have all come in series in which the road team split or won the season series.

The implications, obviously, are that Boston, Orlando and the Clippers have a much better shot of advancing than the other five clubs without home-court advantage. And while this isn't the only factor, I'm not inclined to bet against a trend that's 51-2 without a darned good reason.


CONFERENCE SEMIFINALS

In the conference semis, none of that head-to-head stuff applies. Hey, I don't make the rules here, I'm just telling you that the trend line that is so overwhelming in the first round completely disappears afterward.

For example, last season the Lakers beat the Mavs 110-82 two weeks before the playoffs started to complete a 2-1 win of the season series, and they had home-court advantage against Dallas in the second round. Not much good it did 'em. Similarly, Chicago's season-series sweep over Miami last season was of little portent in the Eastern Conference finals.

He didn't go as far as the finals with it, but it's hard to see why the data would show a huge correlation between reg season series and playoff series in the first round, then have that disappear in the second round, only to come back by the finals.

Also something else you might find interesting:

NBA FINALS


(2) Heat vs. (1) Spurs
Season: Heat 1-0
Power Rankings: Spurs 109.2, Heat 104.6
Accuscore: Spurs 53%, Heat 47%

Pick: Spurs in 6
Hard to see the LeBron bias there.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 05:58 AM
Managed to find Hollinger's comments on reg season series thing. This is from last year's playoff predictions (http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2012/story/_/page/PERDiem-120427/nba-playoffs-predicting-every-round)





He didn't go as far as the finals with it, but it's hard to see why the data would show a huge correlation between reg season series and playoff series in the first round, then have that disappear in the second round, only to come back by the finals.

Also something else you might find interesting:

Hard to see the LeBron bias there.

The regular season match up vs. finals match up stat I was referring to was something I heard about years ago. I would have to research it more, but I'm pretty sure that throughout NBA history, the team that got the better of the other in the regular season beat the other one in the finals. Now, since they are east and west team usually, they only meet twice in the regular season and the sample size is smaller in comparison to two Western conference teams who play each other 3 or 4 times per season. Therefore, it is measured differently and would not have the same correlation as the example you gave in reference to the 2011 Western Conference Semis where the Lakers faced the Mavs. I do recall very strongly, that if a west or east team won both games of the regular season match up, that team won the majority of the time if they met in the finals. This stat was one of those "who ever wins the first game of the finals goes on to win the championship 80% of the time" kind of thing. Essentially, it's based off of all past NBA finals performances. I remember them talking about it in 2010 when the Lakers played the Cavs for the second time when they had lost the first game and how that second match up was a must win for the Lakers due to that stat.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 06:07 AM
And here's what everyone in this thread is saying to you:



See what we're getting at? Maybe Hollinger has a huge Lakers bias that makes him pick against them, or maybe you have a huge pro-Lakers bias that makes see bias every time someone picks against them.

You have a good point about me having a subconscious bias that could be similar to the one I accused Hollinger of having and I do see what you are getting at. The difference between Hollinger and I is that I can admit my bias. I don't claim to be some impartial statistical robot who makes predictions free of bias. Most NBA or sports analysts in general have biases as do league officials. Some admit it, some don't. But they are there regardless and do manifest themselves in one way or another. It's possible that my particular bias allows me to see Hollingers bias more clearly than do others who are impartial to those specific biases.

Who is Hollingers favorite team anyways? As an NBA fan I'm sure he has to have one. It's no secret that the Lakers are mine.

bholly
10-16-2012, 06:26 AM
He covers Atlanta and Portland now, but if he's actually a fan of one then he goes to pretty good lengths to be a objective and not a fanboy - to the point where I really don't know if he's a fan of either (or anyone) at all, and I read a decent amount of his stuff, including his twitter.
He's a Redskins fan, I know that much, but if he prefers an NBA team he isn't obvious about it.

amos1er
10-16-2012, 06:32 AM
You are misinterpreting what ad hominems are. The fallacy implies I think you are wrong because you are dumb. I am saying you are dumb because you are wrong. Do you see the difference?

Ugh...thats why I specified an abusive ad hominem. Maybe you need to re-read the definition I left for you.

However, that last comment could fall into the category of a hasty generalization as well. I was more referring to the flurry of other personal attacks you hit me with throughout the course of the argument.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-16-2012, 09:53 AM
I did and I also read this one where you again said that his picks aren't bias. Thats all I'm saying. Obviously they aren't 100% right. I can't hold anyone to that standard.

You claim that because he bases so much off advanced stats, which are non-bias in nature, that his predictions will therefore come out non-bais too. So then is it not possible that its the personal interpretation of these stats can be based off bias even though the stats themselves aren't?

ok im glad we got the first part done with, that he uses stats + advanced stats.

now the only personal interpretation he does is based off of the stats, for example, lets look at the 2007 finals between the Cavaliers and the Spurs, but this isnt preseason prediction, it was a prediction for 'who do you think will win the NBA finals" and yet, you still see him use stats and base his prediction off of the information given. if the accuscore were in favor of LeBron's Cavaliers, he would have chosen LeBron's Cavs.

I understand your thoughts about John Hollinger, but the least you could do is at least respect the man's opinion, because he does follow a formula, its not like he sits out of his az and says blah blah will win.

Give the man credit.
Not once did I critique him when he said the Bulls could have beaten the Heat had Drose played. I obv disagree, but I respect his opinion, and he made some damn good points.

I'm not sure if you listen to ESPN radio, but Steve Abbott was discussing that in this age and time it is hard to critique a player or a team without being labeled a "hater." I used to think Charles Barkley was a heat hater because he kept picking against the Heat, it was only until he explained himself did I realize how foolish I was. His pick was based off of that the miami offense relies heavily on dwade, bosh, and LeBron.
and when they played teams who excel as a unit collectively, the miami heat have troubles, and he cited a few games to back up his claim.

I disagree, but he made some valid points, so i respect it.

In conclusion, basically what I am trying to say is you don't have to agree with John Hollinger's picks, and that is just fine because we all disagree with some of his picks, however, to just write him off as a hater, or an idiot, is just not fair.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-16-2012, 10:08 AM
Outlook

The Lakers have the highest ceiling of any team in basketball. If Bynum comes back healthy and plays like he did last season, if the frontcourt meshes and stays out of each other's way, and if Bryant can put together another MVP-caliber season, the sky is the limit. In that sense, the Lakers have to be considered the favorite to win the West -- if everything goes right, there's no way anyone will beat them.
So you might be surprised to learn I'm not picking them to win. When I projected this team statistically, enough minor concerns came up that it added up to a one-game advantage for the Jazz. I realize this seems a bit odd since L.A. beat Utah fairly convincingly in the playoffs last year, and did it without Bynum, so let's try to walk through it:

(1) Bynum's health and production are not guaranteed. I project him playing 30 minutes a game, even with time out for injuries, and that still might have been rosy on my part.

(2) The frontcourt players are likely to negatively impact each other. Not hugely -- not as badly as Zach Randolph and Eddy Curry last season, for instance -- but enough that in the absence of other effects it would be a noticeable. I project both Gasol and Odom losing 1.5 points of PER to this.

(3) Kobe. It's become passe to say he's the best player in the league; certainly he's been on the short list for the past half-decade. He's also 30 and has more mileage on his legs than any other 30-year-old in history, which might not be a concern except that his numbers have dropped fairly sharply each of the past two seasons. The fact that he's trying to play out the entire season with a wounded finger makes me think this isn't the year he breaks the streak. My projection system has his PER at 23.83 -- that's without putting my thumb on the scale for the factors mentioned above -- and while that's still awesome, it also would continue the downward trend (28.11, 26.13, 24.31) since age 27.

(4) The guards. Vujacic, Fisher and Farmar all played far better than their established norms last season. While this seems believable enough in Farmar's case, the other two had several years of data indicating they weren't as good as they showed last season. It's possible they've bucked the trend; it's also not the way to bet. Chances are at least two of the three will play worse this year.

If the points above sounded too pessimistic, let me bring up four optimistic indicators, too: The Lakers have Gasol and Bynum for a full season instead of half, Farmar could excel and take over at the point, Bynum could be unbelievably good, and Ariza is potentially a major upgrade on Radmanovic and Walton.

All that gives the Lakers a better best-case scenario than anyone in the league. But they have to answer a lot of question marks in order to pull that off. And when I look at what's probable, rather than merely what's possible, L.A. comes out second in an airtight three-way race for the West's top record.

Prediction: 57-25, 1st in Pacific Division, 2nd in Western Conference

^^
John Hollinger's prediction post Gasol trade. as you can see he simply said, yet im picking against them.... and explained why.

He just jots down the numbers and based off of the numbers, he tells it like it is..
this prediction alone should help you change your views on Hollinger...

SteBO
10-16-2012, 11:16 AM
Nothing is wrong with John Hollinger. People just want to paint to bad picture of him because they're either too lazy & stubborn to comprehend the facts he brings up and how he applies statistics, or just don't care enough to try and understand them. They'd rather use their own homeristic point of view, which has sadly become the norm in this forum.

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 11:16 AM
Ugh...thats why I specified an abusive ad hominem. Maybe you need to re-read the definition I left for you.

However, that last comment could fall into the category of a hasty generalization as well. I was more referring to the flurry of other personal attacks you hit me with throughout the course of the argument.

The ad hominem fallacy is a fallacy because it's saying what a person does makes their argument invalid. I am not saying that at all. I am saying your hatred for John Hollinger is stupid so you are dumb.

It's an ad hominem to say the inverse. If you don't get that concept we are done.

Secondly, the argument that he is biased is a stupid one. He's not. End of story.

SteBO
10-16-2012, 11:19 AM
Don't waste your breath man. Let's face it, certain fans just want to be able to express their homerism and completely disregard the facts laid out right in front of their face. Nothing new here....

gatkins11
10-16-2012, 08:14 PM
Hollinger is an idiot and yes, I am being a Mavs homer here.

Guppyfighter
10-16-2012, 09:17 PM
Hollinger is an idiot and yes, I am being a Mavs homer here.

:laugh2:

b@llhog24
12-12-2012, 03:46 AM
Great thread.

JJ_JKidd
12-12-2012, 04:20 AM
He predicted in his NBA Insider reveal that the Nuggets would finish at the 2 seed above the Thunder and Lakers. :facepalm:

Ive been w PSD since 2006 and since then, whatever that prick Hollinger says is a bunch of crap.

Guppyfighter
12-12-2012, 04:21 AM
Ive been w PSD since 2006 and since then, whatever that prick Hollinger says is a bunch of crap.

lokokay

DumDum
12-12-2012, 04:33 AM
he's on drugs

JJ_JKidd
12-12-2012, 06:27 AM
lokokay

:confused:

Evolution23
12-12-2012, 07:05 AM
He was wrong like a lot of people were wrong about the Knicks. Basically people didn't take into account chemistry issues (negative and positive) for both teams respectively.

thenaj17
12-12-2012, 07:32 AM
stop it, everyone has an opinion. we just have to respect it and move on.

no matter how bold opinions are, these are nba analysts, nba stats guru who have been doing this all their careers. let them have their say.

Nobody should respect Hollinger, he's an idiot. He thought adding Iggy would make them elite.