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.
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.
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 |
21
comments
Comments
Hollinger has never respect the Wizards
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 0 recs
IIRC
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 3, 2007 6:28 PM EDT
up
0 recs
This is coming from a division rival...
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 0 recs
At least look at the method
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 0 recs
enough
by joshp on
Oct 3, 2007 11:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Hold on
by Pradamaster on
Oct 3, 2007 11:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
right
by joshp on
Oct 4, 2007 12:52 AM EDT
up
0 recs
PER data--can it be misled?
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 0 recs
Doesn't 82games track that?
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.
by Pradamaster on
Oct 3, 2007 6:15 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I don't think so
by Ben Q Rock on
Oct 3, 2007 7:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Look here
They don't have PER, but they do have per-40 box score stats.
by Pradamaster on
Oct 3, 2007 7:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
All good points
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 0 recs
I'm bad at math
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.
by JakeTheSnake on Oct 3, 2007 11:19 PM EDT 0 recs
That's basically
by Pradamaster on
Oct 3, 2007 11:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That's good
by crucifictorious on
Oct 3, 2007 11:28 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I call Kornheiser!
by JakeTheSnake on
Oct 3, 2007 11:30 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Excellent
by JakeTheSnake on
Oct 3, 2007 11:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Hollinger has always bothered me.
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 0 recs
Statistics don't lie...
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
0 recs
Wash Post Sports Bog
by Vanilla Gorilla on Oct 5, 2007 1:30 PM EDT 0 recs













