Hey durvasa, the player rankings are back up on ESPN! If you have the time, could you check for any updates, especially ones regarding T-Mac and his 07-08 outlook? Thanks!
Hollinger's analyses seem to be as thorough and methodical as they can be, but his predictions are much less meritable, especially when they are JVG-related. Examples: Bonzi's acquisition would work well with Gundy at the helm of the Rockets in the '06-'07 season; Gundy's team would beat Utah Jazz in 6 in the 1st-round playoffs.
OMG, they once again hurt your feelings with such relatively favorite review of Yao Ming...2nd time today ROFL. But you did prove your smartness by picking out the major negative point in a long review. You are more intelligent than I thought. Cookie for you and don't care.
Those examples aren't very damning. Most analysts thought the Bonzi aquisition was a good one, because we got him so cheap (low risk, just like Francis). And we were heavily favored to win against the Jazz by both stats-oriented and traditional analysts. You act like we had no chance of beating them, even though we were up by a decent margin with 5 minutes left in game 7. And future predictions are always far less reliable than analyzing the past. Hollinger's job at ESPN is to come up with projections, so he's going to be wrong a lot more than the guys who don't really predict anything specific.
2007-08 outlook: McGrady's player efficiency rating should stay in the low 20s, but expect it to be structured differently. The Rockets' talent influx in the offseason should allow him to ease up on all the long jumpers at the end of the shot clock and produce fewer shots, but of a higher quality. The projections don't know this and predict him to lead the league in usage rate again, but between Yao Ming's continued ascension and the improved supporting cast, I'd look for that number to dip quite a bit. Instead, look for him to achieve a more meaningful milestone -- finally getting out of the first round of the playoffs.
What you are doing here is trying to justify Hollinger's failures in projections and predictions. That some other pundits made similar mistakes shall yield no redeeming values to Hollinger's fortune-telling. When it comes to predicting the future, Hollinger the bball stats guru is just as unreliable as, if not more than, others who do their crystal ball predictions basing primarily on "gut feelings." One other thing. People should really think harder if they want to accept those massaged minutes-specific stats, especially the rebounding stats. I just checked espn stats board, according to per 48-minute rebounding rating (which is exactly the same as the per 40-minute rebounding rating, if one is not math challenged), Deke is ranked number 1. No knocking on Deke, he is a great rounder, even at this age. But are we not deluding ourselves into thinking that Deke can sustain 40 minutes of play per game? You know what's funny, if we use per-40 minute stats to rank our players' performances in last season's playoffs, VSpan is easily numero uno among all Rockets.
Since when are projections ever 100% accurate? Foretelling the future is never easy you know, but at least in Hollingers case he has a system in place that has produced good results on a players development curve. Ive been through this argument before First off rebounds per minute can be skewed by pace, the most accurate barometer of rebounding prowess is rebound rate (% of available rebounds collected), and by that Deke remains the best rebounder in the league so either way I get your point, but it is a flawed one. The point is NOT to say he could put that up fo 40minutes, the point is that in his amount of playing time he is definitely the best rebounder. Meaning if you had one possession and you NEEDED a rebound, your best best would be to have Deke on the floor. No whats funny is you total lack of understanding for these stats, tell me the sample size of V-spans minutes and look at everyone else's. The sample size is MUCH too small to be taken seriously. For god sake the man played about 1% of the teams available minutes in the playoffs. Next time you want to expose something, I suggest you take the time to understand what it is your trying to ridicule.
I tend to respect Hollingers' opinions and it bothers me that he considers Francis a back up shooting guard and both Mike James and Rafer Alston back up point guards. You'd hope he'd think at least one of our potential starting point guards was qualified to be a starter. Nonetheless, we're vastly improved at that position from last year.
You may be right (I don't know of any study that he's proven to be more accurate with his predictions than others). I just don't think your examples were very good. Personally, I'll trust a guy who's "thorough and methodical" (your words), over someone who uses gut feelings. Deke's ability to sustain 40 minutes of play has nothing to do with his rebounding ability. It has to do with his age/stamina. While he's on the court, he's a great rebounder. But if you want to determine how much he'll help your team rebounding overall, you need to take into account both his rebounding ability and his ability to stay on the court. Two separate things. Not sure what your point is there. No one seriously uses per-minute numbers for players who play a handful of minutes in garbage time.
