John Hollinger is a moron

[Elijah]

From today's chat:

Jonathan (Atlanta, GA): Hawks in the 13th spot? They played close to .500 ball after the Bibby trade and most of their core players are still naturally getting better (because they're so young). How does a MASH outfit like the Bobcats get more love than a playoff team?

John Hollinger: Atlanta won 37 games, lost its third-best player, and had no draft pick. It's reasonable to expect that they'll be worse, no?

3rd best?

1) JJ

2) Smoove

3) Horford

4) Bibby

5) Marvin

ZaZa and Law had horrible years last year and ZaZa had nice numbers 2 years ago.

On top of that, Flip has a killer instinct, and Mo is massively underrated.

So try 9th best, moron

[Elijah]

"John Hollinger: I live in ATL and am at Phillips all the time. Horford was more indispensible, because they didn't have another dirty-work guy, but in terms of sheer, in-a-vacuum quality, Chils was their third-best player. "

what the hell does that even mean? the guy averaged 11 ppg and nothing else.

[TheTruth]

Ug, this is becoming disgusting. I liked Chill as much as the next guy, but that dude wasn't even all that special. Our team is a LOT better off with more complementary players leading the charge off the bench compared to a "6th Starter" that averaged starter minutes the entire year and didn't do a whole lot outside of dirty work around the basket.

Mo Evans and Flip will make us forget about Chill. Heck, I have already.

[KDT88]

I can't really say anything right now since everyone is 0-0. As soon as the Hawks are half way through the year, I'll gladly dis Hollinger (assuming the Hawks will be where I think they'll be..somewhere around a .550 winning %)

EDIT: I could dis him on the Chils being the 3rd best player, but its not even worth it. Every Hawks fan knows that Chills was probably the 6th best on the squad last year. One could argue that he was better than Marvin, but I'll give the edge to Marvin.

Edited October 15, 2008 by KDT88

[AtLaS]

Anyone who calls Chill our 3rd best player is an idiot. Everyone is just obsessed with his high shooting percentage so they think he was much better than he actually was. The Hawks don't play on national TV to give people a chance to realize that. People also claim Childress as a good defender which is ridiculous.

[PureGreatness]

yall got to let me know when he be doing the chat things

[AHF]

Hollinger is the stats guy. His "in a vacuum" blah, blah basically is masking his true statement:

"Chillz had a very high PER. I measure value based on PER. Chillz was second best on the team in PER. I will look like a moron if I say he was better than JJ so I will say he was third best on the team instead because his PER ranks him higher than Al Horford, Mike Bibby, or Marvin Williams."

Hollinger bases 90% of his statements on PER. Don't read too much into this. Hollinger's career is based on PER so he isn't going to abandon it now.

[Jungle Jack]

Hello,

While I agree that the Hawks are being underestimated, I am afraid Hollinger is usually right on with his analysis. When last year Hollinger predicted the Hawks will get the eight seed, there were no questions of his ability. He also nailed it.

Cheers,

JJ

Edited October 15, 2008 by Jungle Jack

[macdaddy]

Ug, this is becoming disgusting. I liked Chill as much as the next guy, but that dude wasn't even all that special. Our team is a LOT better off with more complementary players leading the charge off the bench compared to a "6th Starter" that averaged starter minutes the entire year and didn't do a whole lot outside of dirty work around the basket.

Mo Evans and Flip will make us forget about Chill. Heck, I have already.

Doing the dirty work around the basket IS doing a lot. That's what guys like Flip and Evans probably aren't going to do but someone has to. We'll see if Marv and Smoove can make up for it. Chill played those starters minutes for a reason. He was one of the few who wasn't just standing around waiting for a pass.

[Traceman]

Hello,

While I agree that the Hawks are being underestimated, I am afraid Hollinger is usually right on with his analysis. When last year Hollinger predicted the Hawks will get the eight seed, there were no questions of his ability. He also nailed it.

Cheers,

JJ

ANY analysis that says that Chillz is better than Horford is WAY off base. Didn't we have a very goosd winning percentage in games that Chillz missed last year? I certainly don't think that would have been the case without Horford.

[exodus]

Hello,

While I agree that the Hawks are being underestimated, I am afraid Hollinger is usually right on with his analysis. When last year Hollinger predicted the Hawks will get the eight seed, there were no questions of his ability. He also nailed it.

Cheers,

JJ

Hollinger also thought the JJ trade was a horrible deal and that we were badly overrating JJ.

So do you think Phoenix would take JJ back if all we wanted was Doris and 2 1st rounders?

[Swish]

Hello,

While I agree that the Hawks are being underestimated, I am afraid Hollinger is usually right on with his analysis. When last year Hollinger predicted the Hawks will get the eight seed, there were no questions of his ability. He also nailed it.

Cheers,

JJ

Even a jackass is right 1 out of 100 times. Its just probability at that point.

[BossTweed]

Hollinger is the stats guy. His "in a vacuum" blah, blah basically is masking his true statement:

"Chillz had a very high PER. I measure value based on PER. Chillz was second best on the team in PER. I will look like a moron if I say he was better than JJ so I will say he was third best on the team instead because his PER ranks him higher than Al Horford, Mike Bibby, or Marvin Williams."

Hollinger bases 90% of his statements on PER. Don't read too much into this. Hollinger's career is based on PER so he isn't going to abandon it now.

Yeah, you have to keep this in mind any time you read anything from Hollinger.

[Packfill]

ANY analysis that says that Chillz is better than Horford is WAY off base. Didn't we have a very goosd winning percentage in games that Chillz missed last year? I certainly don't think that would have been the case without Horford.

To be fair, it is not like the Hawks had a great winning percentage with Horford. Obviously though, Horford is a much more important piece then Childress ever was.

[crimedog]

To be fair, it is not like the Hawks had a great winning percentage with Horford. Obviously though, Horford is a much more important piece then Childress ever was.

Yeah, I guess there is also a question of value v ability. Chil may have been "better" than Al but he certainly wasn't more important.

[WraithSentinel]

Hollinger has went from a guy that I thought knew something to a another douche bag at Espn. In other words he is a joke.

[AHF]

Yeah, I guess there is also a question of value v ability. Chil may have been "better" than Al but he certainly wasn't more important.

Horford is clearly better for both ability and value, IMO. The problem is that it undermines the PER stat to recognize that Childress wasn't significantly better than Horford because PER doesn't take defense into account very much, cherry picking shots rather than creating increases efficiency, etc.

PER is generally a good stat, IMO. Basketball is a difficult stat to quantify statistically compared to a sport like baseball and PER is one of the best statistics. However, it is also clearly not perfect. If it was, you would have to acknowledge that Childress was better than Lamar Odom, Tayshaun Prince, Luol Deng, etc. and on par with guys like Andre Iguodala, Hedo Turkoglu, etc. Childress is a good solid player but there is a good reason no one thinks he is at that level.