Comments on: Hollinger’s Draft Rater

By: cragganmor

cragganmor — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:55:41 +0000

Hollinger is a stats guy, it’s all about past performance. There is no statistical measure to accurately predict upside.

No wonder guys like Holiday and Derozan don’t rate all that well, surprised that Gerald Henderson, T-Will and Sam Yound didn’t crack the top 12. Also, I don’t think that his models include strength of schedule, otherwise Daye and Curry would not be so highly rated.

Having said that, I think those ratings are pretty accurate. The only one I would not put as top 12 is Daye; Hollinger obviously does not factor in being bony thin.

By: Myles A. Mills

Myles A. Mills — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:09:51 +0000

good post. you took the words out of my mouth about hollinger’s per and all that nonsense. the fact that people on espn actually refer to it as an actual stat is funny.

By: knicks55

knicks55 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:30:39 +0000

i agree with that comment about if we draft jordan hill then we buy a pick and get ty lawson, but if not lawson, then maybe a guy like eric maynor possibly,

i personally like derozan as the knicks pick at 8 bc the knicks do need another shooter at the 2 guard, but thats if steph curry, holliday or hill are gone, he like my 4th option player in my mind

By: dan

dan — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:26:00 +0000

Chris — This is exactly the type of stuff I was talking about a few days ago. Thanks.

By: Funk

Funk — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:02:50 +0000

Teague a sleeper? there are plenty of mock drafts that have him going 10th to milwaukee. If he’s being spoken about in the top 10 of the lottery, I believe he would lose his “sleeper” status.

Athletically Derozan isn’t anything special, despite what many web sites stated prior to the combine. Chase Budinger tested better than him in almost every category in the combine, and is a much better shooter. What makes Derozan have more potential than him??

By: hexagram

hexagram — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:23:33 +0000

Of course there’s a lot more to basketball than stats. There’s a lot more to everything than stats: medicine, economics, business. But that’s the beauty of statistical methods. In any individual case, the statistical prediction may be wrong and someone’s gut may be a better guide. But over many occurrences, the stats prevail (if you’re counting the right things). So, if you’re a GM and you have to make many choices many times, you are in a repetitive environment and the stats become extremely predictive (if the method involved has been successful).

What we don’t know about this system is how many players it rated higher than the consensus and was wrong about and how many players it rated lower than the draft position and was wrong about. Anyone can list a few winners they picked that others didn’t see. But can they do it consistently?”

By: CircleLimit4

CircleLimit4 — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:13:44 +0000

I dig Hollinger’s systematic approach to analysis. Hollinger will be the first to tell you that stats never give the whole story, but they’re indicators and should not be ignored. He doesn’t use them willy nilly but instead tries to make the stats smarter by adjusting for variable such as pace, number of possessions and opponent output.

I posted this on the last Rubio piece but it got lost amidst the 120+ comments. DX did a very competent “by the numbers” article on the PG class in this years draft. It seems to back up Hollinger’s guesstimations concerning the PG’s, especially Lawson. Calathes and Curry also look great in these stat comparisons:

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Just-By-the-Numbers-This-Years-Point-Guard-Crop-3262/

By: slambam

slambam — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:20:16 +0000

I am POSITIVE that if we select Hill, then Walsh will trade down and select Lawson. I’m not the biggest fan of his, but he’s fast as hell and very efficient (probably why he has the high ranking). His injuries concern me, but of the 2nd tier of PG’s, he’s probably on the top of Donnie’s list.

By: Mucha

Mucha — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:49:15 +0000

That’s really interesting but I guess Hollinger will not talk about the bad examples. What I want to know is, how many top 10 players (in the “history” of his draft rater) ended up playing in the Czechoslovakian league?

Demar DeRozan – if he reaches his potential – will be an Andre Iguodala and Josh Howard type of player in my opinion.

By: Giaps

Giaps — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:31:30 +0000

Chris,
Good description on Hollinger… “mechanical”. I like that. I always have a major beef with his formulas because, well they’re formulas! Basketball is far from that.

Is there a stat for desire… or dedication, passion, selflessness, personality etc etc… all these things play MAJOR roles in a player’s overall development and career. All intangibles that cannot ever be measured (statistically in a formula) and all his formulas lack recognition of these intangibles.

I think it is interesting to talk about, but only as long as we do not equate basketball to math and numbers. Good call on your analysis.