Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject: Hollinger's Eastern Conference Predictions
From ESPN Insider:
1. Chicago Bulls 55-27
2. Cleveland Cavaliers 54-28
3. Boston Celtics 51-31
4. Orlando Magic 49-33
5. Detroit Pistons 48-34
6. Miami Heat 43-39
7. Atlanta Hawks 42-40
8. Charlotte Bobcats 40-42
9. Toronto Raptors 39-43
10. New Jersey Nets 39-43
11. New York Knicks 38-44
12. Milwaukee Bucks 35-47
13. Washington Wizards 33-49
14. Indiana Pacers 28-54
15. Philadelphia 76ers 21-61
I have issues with Orlando being that high, Atlanta and Charlotte ahead of Toronto and New Jersey, and the Washington Wizards being one the worst teams in the East.
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 697 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 2:14 pm Post subject:
I disagree with John's predicted record for the Wizards, but I don't quibble with his overall analysis. He basically makes the same points I've been making about the team for the past couple seasons. I figure the Wiz will be closer to .500 again this season.
I also quibble with the predictions for Orlando, Atlanta and Charlotte. _________________ My blog
I don't have Insider, so I can't read the explanation, but I don't get how you could predict the Wizards to have their worst season since the injury riddled 03-04 campaign unless they have more major injuries. Yes their defense is still horrible, but why should their offense backslide so much? They haven't lost any major players, will have Songaila healthy for the whole year and an improving Andray Blatche. I don't know if that makes them that much better, but it certainly doesn't hurt them, so you have to at least think they'll go around .500. And if they can stay healthy it should be better than that. _________________ XOHoops - A New Kind of Fantasy Basketball
a) a 39-43 Pythag record a year ago
b) Projections showing PER drops for Daniels (2.1), Butler (1.3), Jamison (2.1), Stevenson (1.0) and Thomas (1.7).
c) Blatche (1.0) only player showing major improvement (Arenas and Haywood very minor increases).
c) Pecherov and Young improving on Hayes/Mason/Taylor et al.
I was surprised at first too, but if looking at these projected PERs, the D has to improve quite a bit to make up for it.
I'm not sure why it seems that the Heat are given a best-case scenario, while the Wizards are given a worst-case scenario. I'm not sure if this is based on the previous success that the Heat have had or their better coaching or what. I just found it interesting. _________________ No fancy website
No fancy book
a) a 39-43 Pythag record a year ago
b) Projections showing PER drops for Daniels (2.1), Butler (1.3), Jamison (2.1), Stevenson (1.0) and Thomas (1.7).
c) Blatche (1.0) only player showing major improvement (Arenas and Haywood very minor increases).
c) Pecherov and Young improving on Hayes/Mason/Taylor et al.
I was surprised at first too, but if looking at these projected PERs, the D has to improve quite a bit to make up for it.
While I appreciate the statistical work put into these predictions, there should be some common sense attached to them to make them pass the laugh test, i.e. unless the whole Wizards team spends most of the season in sick bay, there is no way they end up in 13th spot.
Joined: 30 Dec 2004 Posts: 569 Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:20 am Post subject:
supersub15 wrote:
John Hollinger wrote:
Here's what I had:
a) a 39-43 Pythag record a year ago
b) Projections showing PER drops for Daniels (2.1), Butler (1.3), Jamison (2.1), Stevenson (1.0) and Thomas (1.7).
c) Blatche (1.0) only player showing major improvement (Arenas and Haywood very minor increases).
c) Pecherov and Young improving on Hayes/Mason/Taylor et al.
I was surprised at first too, but if looking at these projected PERs, the D has to improve quite a bit to make up for it.
While I appreciate the statistical work put into these predictions, there should be some common sense attached to them to make them pass the laugh test, i.e. unless the whole Wizards team spends most of the season in sick bay, there is no way they end up in 13th spot.
It's not my job to defend John's work, but I do think John spells out his reasons why he believes what he said, and those reasons are not just statistical. John predicts a 33 win season for the Wizards, down from 41. I make no comment on the accuracy of that, but I will note that the standard change in team wins from one season to the next is 8-10 games, so this isn't even a dramatic change (it's pretty average). That may not be common knowledge, but it should factor into what is "common sense." _________________ Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
http://www.basketballonpaper.com
Looking at the article it seems to me his argument is that the Wizards peaked last year and are therefore more likely to be worse this year than better:
Quote:
"But does anyone else get the impression this franchise is spinning its wheels? At the end of the day, the Wizards' two best players had career years, and they still went 41-41. And although Washington supporters will blame the final mark on a rash of late-season injuries, the truth is that for the season as a whole the Wizards weren't unusually unfortunate in this regard. Arenas missed eight games, Jamison 12 and Butler 19; of the other key rotation players only Darius Songaila and Etan Thomas missed time, and in Thomas' case it was an event more predictable than the return of Halley's Comet."
Combine this with his opinion that many of the teams Washington finished above last year were far more ravaged by injuries, made significant steps to improve themselves in the off season, and/or were just younger with room for growth and you have an explanation for the big drop.
I expect Wizards somewhere in 36-40 win range. Atlanta or Charlotte might get that high if everything clicks but I'd guess one or both fall short of 36.
Defense is the achilles for Washington, 28th in league and has basically trended down every year with Gilbert and E Jordan. I like their big 3 on offense but team eFG% on offense was only 18th. I will not be surprised if they miss playoffs, though I think it will be a close call.
a) a 39-43 Pythag record a year ago
b) Projections showing PER drops for Daniels (2.1), Butler (1.3), Jamison (2.1), Stevenson (1.0) and Thomas (1.7).
c) Blatche (1.0) only player showing major improvement (Arenas and Haywood very minor increases).
c) Pecherov and Young improving on Hayes/Mason/Taylor et al.
I was surprised at first too, but if looking at these projected PERs, the D has to improve quite a bit to make up for it.
While I appreciate the statistical work put into these predictions, there should be some common sense attached to them to make them pass the laugh test, i.e. unless the whole Wizards team spends most of the season in sick bay, there is no way they end up in 13th spot.
It's not my job to defend John's work, but I do think John spells out his reasons why he believes what he said, and those reasons are not just statistical. John predicts a 33 win season for the Wizards, down from 41. I make no comment on the accuracy of that, but I will note that the standard change in team wins from one season to the next is 8-10 games, so this isn't even a dramatic change (it's pretty average). That may not be common knowledge, but it should factor into what is "common sense."
Fact: The "big 3" missed a combined 39 games. The last 9 games of the season were played without Butler and Arenas.
No stats can account for this. I'm not saying they're winning their division, but 33 wins?
Joined: 30 Dec 2004 Posts: 569 Location: Near Philadelphia, PA
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject:
supersub15 wrote:
No stats can account for this. I'm not saying they're winning their division, but 33 wins?
The only thing that bugged me was saying that John didn't use common sense. One can argue over his projection, but his arguments aren't beyond common sense. It isn't hard to come up with other reasons to support his projection - their 3 wins over the Celtics last year aren't going to be so easy, Arenas had 4 buzzer beaters last year that may not be there this year. I'm not saying that I believe John's projection, but employing the "common sense" argument or "laugh test" with regard to NBA preseason prognostications has often come back to haunt those who used it. I've looked and there have been a lot of seeming "no-brainers" that have been proven wrong. An easy example -- Pretty much everyone picked the Clips for the playoffs last year...
In many ways, I wish I hadn't legitimized the "laugh test" in BoP. It has some validity, but I find that people deride too many things too quickly. _________________ Dean Oliver
Author, Basketball on Paper
http://www.basketballonpaper.com
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 697 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:24 pm Post subject:
I concur with Dean on this. I mean, I'm as big a Wizards fan as there can be -- my username used to be WizardsKev -- but I think John's prediction is reasonable, even though I don't agree with it. His analysis of the team's problems is sound, and the prediction (as Dean points out) is within the realm of normal won-loss variation. As I've said, I think the Wizards will do better than John predicts, but his prediction and analysis certainly passes the laugh test for me. _________________ My blog
No stats can account for this. I'm not saying they're winning their division, but 33 wins?
The only thing that bugged me was saying that John didn't use common sense. One can argue over his projection, but his arguments aren't beyond common sense. It isn't hard to come up with other reasons to support his projection - their 3 wins over the Celtics last year aren't going to be so easy, Arenas had 4 buzzer beaters last year that may not be there this year. I'm not saying that I believe John's projection, but employing the "common sense" argument or "laugh test" with regard to NBA preseason prognostications has often come back to haunt those who used it. I've looked and there have been a lot of seeming "no-brainers" that have been proven wrong. An easy example -- Pretty much everyone picked the Clips for the playoffs last year...
In many ways, I wish I hadn't legitimized the "laugh test" in BoP. It has some validity, but I find that people deride too many things too quickly.
I agree, bad choice of words on my part.
Nobody can get the prognostications down, from 1 to 15, at 100%. I don't expect John or anybody else to do it. However, John writes for ESPN, is read by practically thousands of subscribers to ESPN Insider, and should expect to be criticized for the "choices" he makes when plugging the numbers into his model.
And I quote (with regards to the Raptors):
Quote:
They also got a career year (in terms of PER) from Ford.
And Calderon.
And Graham.
And Humphries.
And just missed getting one from Bosh.
So there are two possible conclusions. One, that the Raptors' system and Mitchell's genius combined to make everyone better than they ever were before. Or two, that nearly everyone played over their head and is headed straight back to Earth.
Until or unless further evidence for the first possibility surfaces, I'll be going with No. 2. Every key Raptor except Bosh and Bargnani projects to have a lower PER than a season ago...
So, let me see: Ford was in his 3rd full year, Calderon in his 2nd, Graham in his 2nd, Humphries in his 3rd, Bosh his 4th. Since when did players peak after their 2nd or 3rd season?
Meanwhile, the Hawks are supposed to be better because they have a young squad. Hmmm! Doesn't that contradict his premise for the Raptors outlook?
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 697 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject:
Someone posted in the blogosphere a comparison of "expert" predcitions vs. specific-team blogger predictions. A common complaint from fans is that "global" experts like Hollinger don't understand the nuances of the team, and are missing some valuable information. What the comparison showed, though was that the global experts were fairly accurate, and that the "home town bloggers" tended to be overly optimstic in their predictions. _________________ My blog
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 1 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
