Bullets Forever: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Can Tebow Say No To Anything?

Hollinger predicts 33 wins

John Hollinger is easily the best writer on ESPN.  John Hollinger doesn't like the Wizards at all this season.  Therefore, I'm concerned.

But 33 wins?  If the Wizards wins 33 games this year, then it will be a colossal failure.  It's worse than worst case scenario.    

Here's how he justifies it.  

Take a look at their three best players and tell me which of them are going to take a step up from last year: Arenas, who depends entirely on his quickness but is coming off knee surgery? Butler, who comes off a career year at 27? Or Jamison, who is 31 and has seen his numbers slowly declining the past couple years?

I'll go with "none of the above," and for that reason Washington's secondary players are going to need to step up in a major way. But here we have the same problem -- Daniels is a 32-year-old penetrator and nobody would be shocked if he hit the wall this year; while Haywood and Jordan have a prickly relationship that seemed to get even worse last season. The dynamic between Haywood and Thomas bears watching as well -- they fought multiple times last year, and it's rather shocking that one or the other wasn't traded this summer.

While many of Hollinger's points are spot-on, I think he's overrated the lack of upside here.  Arenas may be coming off knee surgery, but he didn't have his best year last year, even before he got hurt.  His per-40 totals improved slightly, but his percentages were way down.  He was quick, but settled far too much for jumpers last year.  I'm not concerned about the knee injury; it occured a while ago, he's back to full strength, and he's shed some weight, which should make him faster.  I'd expect Arenas to be closer to his 05/06 production than his 06/07 numbers.

Butler, on the other hand, had a spectacular first half and a poor, injury-free second half.  If he can simply be somewhere in the middle, which doesn't seem like an unreasonable request, then he won't drop off at all.

Finally, his claim that Jamison is slipping is just lazy.  It's as if Hollinger looked at the age and assumed he was slowing down.  Anecdotally and statistically, Jamison had one of his better years last season.  His per-40 numbers, with the exception of rebounding, all remained relatively the same.  His free throw rate improved, even as his usage rate went down.  More importantly, Jamison was scoring far more efficiently last year.  His true shooting percentagte went from 51.8% to .54.5%, and his effective field goal percentage also rose from 49.1% to 51%.  All that contributed to a jump in PER from 17.1 in 05/06 to 18.4 last season.  It seems that Hollinger mistakenly violated his own dogma and looked at per-game stats rather than per-40 numbers.

Anecdotally, how can anyone say Jamison's declining when he played the way he did in the playoffs?  Combine that with the fact that all that production came in a year where Jamison continually suggested that he was exhausted after playing with Team USA over the summer, and I see no evidence why he would suddenly fall off this year.  

As for the complimentary players, AD slipping is definitely a concern, but he was better last year in terms of per-40 numbers than he was in 05/06, so I think he has at least one more good year left in him.  Though Etan being hurt really sucks, more time can only be a good thing for Brendan Haywood, because the bottom line is that the team plays better when Haywood plays more.  Having Darius Songaila healthy will also help; even if the Wizards were fairly fortunate with injuries last year, they'll have Songaila for more than 37 games.  

Then, there is the addition-by-subtraction of having promising rookies replace Jarvis Hayes, Michael Ruffin, and Calvin Booth in the rotation.  Even if Nick Young, Dominic McGuire, and Oleksiy Pecherov take a while to get adjusted to the NBA, they have to be upgrades over Hayes, Ruffin, and even Booth.  I mean, we're talking about replacing guys with PERs of 10.7, 9.6, and 4.5.  It seems a little hypocritical for Hollinger to ignore this point when it was the main justification in saying Atlanta would be a playoff team.

A lot of people disregard this, but sometimes a team can improve very rapidly merely by replacing awful players with average ones. And you'd have a hard time finding two players more awful than Claxton (PER 7.37) and Wright (6.65) were last season. Furthermore, unlike most awful players, they played a lot -- more than 2,000 minutes between them. Thus, just swapping them with a replacement-level player would add over three or more wins to Atlanta's total. Replacing them with somebody halfway decent should double or triple the effect.

Right, and the Hayes/Ruffin/Booth trio played 2,275 minutes last year.  Where's the difference?  If that phenomenon happens to Atlanta (and I agree it will), it should definitely happen to the Wizards, though perhaps not as egregiously.

Add it all up, and I'm not sure where 33 wins came from.  The Wizards had the point differential of a .500ish team last year, yes, but I don't see how one can foresee a dropoff all the way down to 33 wins.  Even if you take the Pythagorean record (39-43), Hollinger suggests the Wizards will lose six more games than last year, even though no key contributors were lost.  Is the East really that much better?  I'm dubious.

Let's hope Hollinger is wrong again.  Remember, he said the Wizards would miss the playoffs last year as well, and didn't really give a great reason why.  This year, he has a reason, but it's problematic for all the reasons discussed above.

0 recs  |  Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Hollinger has never respect the Wizards
And, frankly, I think the guy is exhibit A of what happens when you take statistics waaaay too far.  When the Wizards were at the top of the eastern conference last year, I'm pretty sure he had them around number 9 or 10 in the power rankings.  I haven't looked at his formula in detail, but I expect it was developed during the defense-dominated years of the league and the guy has just never bothered to adjust it.  I mean, yes, the Wizards need to play better defense to take the next step, particularly during the postseason.  But how many times has it been shown that, due to changes in officiating and team style, high-octane offenses win regular season games?!?

33 wins would be a complete collapse, but has this guy ever had the Wizards making the playoffs?  He's thought the team overperformed for the past two or three years, so rather than looking at the underlying assumptions of the model he makes predictions from, he just says "yep, this year they'll suck.  It'll definitely happen this year."

I think the guy is a total hack.

by sierradave on Oct 3, 2007 3:56 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

IIRC
He had high hopes in '04-'05. I need to consult my library though.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 3, 2007 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is coming from a division rival...
I want to see the Wizards struggle a little bit -- hey, I'm a Magic fan, I have a division-title to worry about -- but Hollinger saying the Wizards are going to decline that much is just ridiculous. Jamison, Butler, and Arenas may not get better, but I doubt they're getting any worse.

I wish I had an Insider account so I can see how he justifies rating the Heat and Bobcats more highly... or did he predict 17 wins for the Heat also?

by Ben Q Rock on Oct 3, 2007 5:14 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

At least look at the method
I don't agree with Hollinger's 33-win prediction (I think they'll be closer to .500), but I think his analysis is on target. It's exactly the stuff I've been writing about the team for the past 2-3 years.

Sierradave is certainly welcome to think Hollinger is a hack, but in general it's a good idea to actually know that the guy's formulas are before dismissing them. Hollinger's comments about the team's defense come from work that he (and others) have done into what wins basketball games in the NBA. The work is accurate, robust, and has been confirmed repeatedly. I've done similar research with similar formulas and come up with similar results. The formulas for offensive and defensive efficiency are meaningful throughout NBA history.

Bottom line: for the Wizards to improve, they're going to have to get better on the defensive end.

by TheSecretWeapon on Oct 3, 2007 5:17 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

enough
people have been saying that about the wizards for the past 3 years, yet theyve still managed to improve. before injuries tore them apart last season, they had the best record in the east. you may be right that the wizards will never be an elite team in their current incarnation, but this is a team that can improve, and predicting anything less than .500 (barring the kind of injuries we had last season) is ridiculous.  

by joshp on Oct 3, 2007 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hold on
Let's be real...they had the best record in the East for like 3 days in January.  Even then, they had a .500 point differential.  If everyone stayed healthy last year, they would have won 44-46 games.  An improvement, but hardly a major one.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Oct 3, 2007 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

right
thats exactly my point. the team hasnt improved defensively, yet theyve been improving from an overall standpoint. therefore saying something like the wizards are gonna suck because they cant defend anyone is dumb, just like saying theyll never get better AT ALL until they improve defenisvely is dumb

by joshp on Oct 4, 2007 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

PER data--can it be misled?
Prada, awesome awesome breakdown of Hollinger's breakdown.  I'm feeling much more optimistic than when I scanned his findings earlier (a full read, of all the previews, must be saved for later).

There is one point that I want to raise--PER can probably be skewed by end-of-season flurries.  Wasn't Jamison's production sliding most of the 2nd half, but becoming the secondary/only scoring option following injuries to Arenas and Butler helped his PER balloon down the stretch?  Ditto with Daniels.  This might be a case of reading statistics way too closely--numbers aside, Jamison proved he has a ton left left in the tank.  But if the big three stay healthy, and Arenas and Butler continue to dominate possessions, it seems like there's a good chance Jamison's performance on paper will dip from last year.

Of course, I don't know how to search for those changes--other than trying to find a Web archive of Jamison's ESPN page--and maybe I'm just looking for a way to rationalize Hollinger's statements.  If anything, I wish PER was sort-able a la +/-.  For example, what was Arenas's PER when on the court with Butler and Jamison?  Or, is Haywood's PER directly linked to his amount of playing time, as he basically contends?

Also, am curious why Sierra Dave has lost faith in Hollinger.  Barring the Wizards, I think he generally gets it right, not to mention makes reading about statistics a general joy.

by crucifictorious on Oct 3, 2007 5:20 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Doesn't 82games track that?
I could be wrong, but doesn't 82games track what players' PERs are with other players?  Isn't that what the player pairs are for?

And as for the main question, I agree, it's possible Antawn's PER went way up after the injuries.  At the same time, we're talking about a pretty small sample size (8 games, less than a tenth of the season), so I doubt it had too much of an effect on the final number.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Oct 3, 2007 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think so
Granted, I'm only giving this a cursory look, but I can't find anything like what you're talking abou ton 82 Games. There is the top five-man units feature, which is somewhat comparable, but not exact...

by Ben Q Rock on Oct 3, 2007 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Look here
http://www.82games.com/0607/0607WASP.HTM

They don't have PER, but they do have per-40 box score stats.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Oct 3, 2007 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

All good points
And in starting to write an answer, got so curious that did some data analysis of Jamison's season and threw it up at We Rite Goode.

Note: When I say data analysis, I mean of the pre-algebra level, not of Hollinger's stats and charts.  So keep those expectations low.

by crucifictorious on Oct 3, 2007 10:10 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I'm bad at math
I also don't have In$ider so I don't get to see a lot of Hollinger's columns and charts and stuff so take this with as many grains of salt as needed.

I disagree that all of the Big 3 will fall off this year, but I can certainly understand how it could be argued that they might not play as well this year.  But how badly would they have to drop off to go from 41-41 (which of course would've been higher without the crippling late season injuries) to a 33 win team?  Even if there was some falloff with the them, you'd have to factor in Blatche's almost guaranteed improvement, the defensive improvement that should in theory come if Haywood gets more minutes (which is looking more and more likely), and contributions from the rookies into that 33 win total.  If all that happens and Washington only gets 33 wins, the big 3 would almost have to fall of the face of the earth to make up the difference.  At least that's the way I see it, but like I said before I'm not a math wiz by any stretch of the imagination so most of the complex stats go right over my head.

Bullets Forever: Your place for the very latest in Wizards news and PhD-level analysis.

by JakeTheSnake on Oct 3, 2007 11:19 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

That's basically
A more concise version of what I'm saying.  We are in total agreement.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Oct 3, 2007 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's good
For the readers' cognitive sake, Prada and Jake should be contractually required to agree on all major Wiz-issues.  And if you two ever don't, the BF community demands a PTI-style videocast.

by crucifictorious on Oct 3, 2007 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I call Kornheiser!
Bullets Forever: Your place for the very latest in Wizards news and PhD-level analysis.

by JakeTheSnake on Oct 3, 2007 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Excellent
Anytime I'm in agreement with you is a good thing.  If for no other reason than if people try to argue with me I can get you to do the arguing.
Bullets Forever: Your place for the very latest in Wizards news and PhD-level analysis.

by JakeTheSnake on Oct 3, 2007 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

pwned!
Prada >>>>>> paid-for espn content

by Bobtimist Prime on Oct 4, 2007 9:39 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Hollinger has always bothered me.
I would always take Hollinger's columns with a grain of salt - I mean this is a guy who makes up his own stats to prove his point, and I AM an Insider member so I've seen it happen (he usually takes two paragraphs describing some long formula without justifying the formula to open his articles).

Hollinger just reminds me of what one of my professors in college said: "There are two kinds of lies: statistics and lies."

by mamemimo on Oct 4, 2007 9:49 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Statistics don't lie...
...people do. Or, they don't understand what the numbers are actually saying. That's a HUGE part of stat analysis in basketball -- understanding what the numbers actually mean.  And, Hollinger has a pretty good understanding of what the numbers are saying. Not perfect, but he's a solid stat analyst.

As for the complaint that he "makes up" his own stats to prove his point -- it's just silly. The nature of statistical analysis is that the researcher asks questions and then tries to come up with a way to answer the question. He's not creating a formula to prove something he already believed, he's creating a formula to answer questions that he has.

by TheSecretWeapon on Oct 5, 2007 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wash Post Sports Bog
Steinberg points out that Hollinger's predictions are not perfect. He underpredicted the win total last year too, and we finished far below where we might have after all those injuries.
"Now, obviously individual production does not unilaterally equal better team production, but there's a high level of causation."

by Vanilla Gorilla on Oct 5, 2007 1:30 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Washington Wizards.
Start posting about the Wizards »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Mrlogo_small
Don't blow it up.  Disassemble.
Mriggs_cartoon_2__small
My dream trades

Recent FanPosts

Chesspiece-web_small
JaVale "Patty Flippin" McGee
Homer_small
Would you be willing to stand pat just for one more chance at lEbron James and the Cavaliers?
Unseld_small
Keep Brendan Haywood
Small
2010 Draft Possibilities
Bullets-forever_4458_small
The official trade rumors thread (Updated 1/22)
Screen-capture-15_small
What Would You Do?
Small
Trade Talked about on NBA TV ( J.R. Smith)
Small
It is time for a change.

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Lead editors

Bullets-forever_4458_small Mike Prada

Peytontrophy_small JakeTheSnake

Mriggs_cartoon_2__small Rook6980

Contributing editors

Big_small Truth About It

Contributing writers

Addingmachine_small bwoodsxyz