Normally Hollinger is really high on the Rockets, so I wouldn't worry about it. He has a point about Clyde.
Most of what he said there is fair, though I think he's not giving sufficient credit to Parson's play as a defender. He's got a good head on his shoulders -- its not just length and quick hands. Also, its clear that he's making these remarks after watching a rather unimpressive performance by the Rockets last night. I'm sure that's impacting his perspective at the moment.
Hey Hollinger...is that just a theory, or have you seen his offensive rebound attempts cause fast break problems... because most coaches will specifically tell the players who should release and who can go for the offensive rebound. Van Gundy, for example, won't let anyone but Howard go for an offensive rebound on a jump shot. He likes to release four players. We did definitely give up too many fast breaks in the Bucks big run...that's for sure. This gives me something extra to watch now.
Everything he said was correct. He usually supports the rockets to a fault and probably watches more rockets games than some guys who regularly post here. He's just objective. It's difficult for most of us to deal with a person who is knowledgeable about our team and isn't overly positive. It's much easier for us to laugh at the guys on Sportscenter and Inside the NBA when all they can talk about is us not having Yao but it hurts when someone points out little known flaws in our players.
Hollinger has never been unfair in his assessment. Sometimes wrong but never unfair. Take it for what it is fans. Although, like a previous commenter said, I do agree he seems a little tainted by the horrible performance he watched last night. Heck, I feel tainted by having watched it too.
You know, i used to hate stats and people that focused so hard on them. Before, it was, "Look, this guy scores 20pts a night, that's why he's better than this other guy!" Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not but it depends on a great deal of things that are not all captured in that stat. Then I came to the internet and it is "Look, this guy has a higher PER (or TS% or per minute stat or whatever) he's better than this other guy!" Sometimes that's true, sometimes it's not but it depends on a great deal of things that are not all captured in that stat. I've read Hollinger's stuff, he understands this and doesn't base all of his player evaluations solely on stats. Now, I pay much more attention to advanced stats and it helps me form my opinions of players/teams. At some point I realized I wasn't annoyed by the stats or the guys who write about them in a level headed objective way. It was just you guys*. The average fan who years ago would be talking about a guys' PPG and fg% has just switched to PER and TS% with little perspective of role, impact, intangibles, defense, system and much more. *not directed at you in particular durvasa
He said Mike Conley and Ty Lawson are on the same boat as Kyle Lowry... I took a quick look at both of their stats and neither of them are doing nearly as good as Lowry. He's a level above those guys so that's kinda a slap to the face. Then the "if you want to see some flopping watch a Rockets game" statement... I guess Hollinger isn't so high on the Rockets after all. Well screw Hollinger.
Not everything he was wrong, but "maybe Houston's announcers should wait until he's scored a single point" is ridiculous... He is scoring a career high and he is averaging more than most of the other all-star caliber guards he mentioned... Plus Lowry averages about 7 rebounds a game on top of that...
