Hollinger to the Grizzlies Front Office

[czvo]

I know some people around here loved him, but the next team that wins an NBA title with that advanced metrics stuff will be the first.

The NBA is, was and always will be driven by stars, and no amount of data fired into an Excel spread sheet is going to make all that much different in the grand scheme of things.

Good for him though for being able to parlay that stuff into a good paying job like that though.

Yeah, there's a team in Dallas that would beg to differ.

Cuban has gone on record saying Dallas is a big believer in it.

 

[RchfldCavRaised]

What I'm hearing from you is that you, with just your two eyes, can analyze every little thing that happens on a court. Advanced stats are about far more than identifying which players are good.

You're fun, this is spirited fun.

In our current state, as a franchise, there is nothing more important than identifying which players are good/have the potential to be great, and doing what we must do with the assets we have to obtain them and sustain them being here as the nucleus grows. Im talking before draft, after draft, Free Agency, trade everything. The organization can get in front of cameras and move the theoretical rebuild start date forward as much as they would like, but for me, I truly believe the summer of 2014 is the proverbial judgement day for Chris Grant/This rendition of a rebuild.

I wage war against advanced metrics, when they "lie" or are used in a manner that justifies something I cannot see with my eyes. That long dissertation I wrote waging war against Hollinger and Camakazee for the RCF blog "Numbers Dont" sums up why I feel the way I do. Sometimes I'll see Hollinger or Pioneer here on RCF post a stat that helps me understand something that I knew I could see but could not quantify. I admit that. However, far more, I see GMs and decision makers justifying HORRIBLE transactions and draft picks by throwing out the same metrics. And that frustrates the shit out of me. Not the stats fault. Player talent evaluation is an art. I dont believe it is a science. This is really the gist of our difference in opinion on advanced metrics.

Nothing more important right now than artfully obtaining the best players with the highest potential to be great, in our current state.

 

[7foot3]

However, far more, I see GMs and decision makers justifying HORRIBLE transactions and draft picks by throwing out the same metrics.

What are some of these decisions? You've mentioned Morey, but you failed to describe what metrics he was looking at improperly and how he really set the franchise back. You haven't mentioned anything else

Far, far more often do you see GMs/coaches make bad decisions based on their "gut" and what they think they see on the court or in a workout, and fail to recognize what is actually happening. This idea that sometimes looking at advanced metrics doesn't work, so we need to rely on the "eye test" is laughable, because the "eye test" fails more just about every system out there.

 

[KI4MVP]

I know some people around here loved him, but the next team that wins an NBA title with that advanced metrics stuff will be the first.

The NBA is, was and always will be driven by stars, and no amount of data fired into an Excel spread sheet is going to make all that much different in the grand scheme of things.

Good for him though for being able to parlay that stuff into a good paying job like that though.

You realize that there are more players on the roster than the stars, right?

And you certainly underestimate the number of teams who use advanced stats. Every championship team from the last decade+ currently has at least one advanced stats guy on staff.

Advanced stats can help teams fill out rosters, figure out what areas they need to improve on, what areas they need to focus on from the other team, etc. And while you may not need them to pick a guy at #1, they most certainly can help teams find an overlooked player later in the draft.

I'm personally surprised Hollinger hadn't been hired by someone before now.

 

[Jon]

What you need to find to make the case, is guys who did not dominate on the college level but because of advanced metrics, were found late or considered reaches in the draft, and are now playing beyond what the eye test already established to be their career trajectory. I can watch a guy and tell you how his game would compliment another guy.

The variation of level of competition, experience, and limited games played at the NCAA level are going to make any sort of advanced metric approach very noisy. IMO, the things it can identify are better just expressed as-is ... for instance, we learn a lot more about Tristan by saying he was a very good offensive rebounder at Texas and that he was able to draw a lot of fouls - and that these traits will likely convey to the pros ... then by saying he scored real high on Hollinger's draft rater.

At the NBA level, however, there's a heckuva lot more to work with.

Of course the reason we use statistics, is that they're objective. We can apply them across the board and see what falls out. If a team could find a super scout who nailed every prediction, then there'd be no argument, but sometimes you wonder if certain teams wouldn't be better served just throwing darts at the draft board. The youngest/rawest players are entering the NBA as fast as they can so they can cash in, and the most experienced and polished players get no respect because their peers have already left.

If NCAA players had to stay for 3 or 4 years, then both statistical and traditional scouting approaches would be a lot more accurate, but that's not what we've got.

 

[Jon]

I'm personally surprised Hollinger hadn't been hired by someone before now.

People who are good at expressing an idea to the public through the media aren't necessarily the best at applying it. Heck, his BS was in Economics and Environmental Science.

Clearly he's made a career centered around studying basketball, watching games, breaking them down, and trying to analyze them statistically. So, that's certainly worth something over just hiring someone with a PhD in Statistical and Analytical Modelling with little knowledge of the sport, but time will tell.

Perhaps there's a reason he's never released details on his draft rater, and has been tooting his own horn quite a bit over it. After all, there's no reason to hire him if you just want to use PER in your player analysis.