martin wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:

markvmc wrote:Why the big deal intro about AI if AI has nothing to do with the streak?

I'm with you. I don't read Hollinger regularly but it seems like he has an agenda against him and was looking for a chance to take some shots at him. It was pointless to the article.

He is trying to sensationalize something that is not there.

He's no Marc Berman

LOL. He is Marc Berman, if Berman was a math nerd.

TheGame wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:You know Hollinger is a moron because he created his corny little "true shooting percentage."

The NBA doesn't use that. Why would you create it ?

That is what kills me with him. This guy is constanting making up nonexistent stats for players, and then when you look at who his stats show is good, you get things like Jackie Butler is a top-10 center. I mean if I could get a job just making up stuff everyday, I would be a happy person.

It's this culture that is afraid of math. So if someone has even a cursory understanding, and they apply it by making up arbitrary statistics, and if you're sufficiently good at selling it, then people are like 'woahhhh, numbers....' At least that's my explanation.

orangeblobman wrote:

TheGame wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:You know Hollinger is a moron because he created his corny little "true shooting percentage."

The NBA doesn't use that. Why would you create it ?

That is what kills me with him. This guy is constanting making up nonexistent stats for players, and then when you look at who his stats show is good, you get things like Jackie Butler is a top-10 center. I mean if I could get a job just making up stuff everyday, I would be a happy person.

It's this culture that is afraid of math. So if someone has even a cursory understanding, and they apply it by making up arbitrary statistics, and if you're sufficiently good at selling it, then people are like 'woahhhh, numbers....' At least that's my explanation.

nyk4ever wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:

VDesai wrote:1) True Shooting percentage is ridiculously easy to calculate and is completely intuitive.
2) John Hollinger didn't create it- he crated PER which is more convoluted and lacks an obvious context to interpret it.

Des.. you should create your own formula. You always seem to have a good grapple on that sorta thing.

nyk, you don't have a good grapple on addition and subtraction?

No - don't you know us weak-minded folk can't do that sorta thing?

lol. it's okay man, don't beat yourself up

fishmike wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:

TheGame wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:You know Hollinger is a moron because he created his corny little "true shooting percentage."

The NBA doesn't use that. Why would you create it ?

That is what kills me with him. This guy is constanting making up nonexistent stats for players, and then when you look at who his stats show is good, you get things like Jackie Butler is a top-10 center. I mean if I could get a job just making up stuff everyday, I would be a happy person.

It's this culture that is afraid of math. So if someone has even a cursory understanding, and they apply it by making up arbitrary statistics, and if you're sufficiently good at selling it, then people are like 'woahhhh, numbers....' At least that's my explanation.

no. its trying mathematically explain or define something that isnt mathematical. Basketball is great because of its randomness and spontaneous players. Those #s are interesting in baseball where you can track what part of the strike zone guys thrive on or throw to, how much range fielders have, pitching and situational patterns... stuff like that. BB is the least structured sport. Math doesnt apply and paints more false pictures than clear ones

Not sure I agree here, Fish. I think the point of some of these non-standard formulae are to
illustrate better how certain players affect the bottom line: wins.
For example you can have 2 players with very close numbers, but the way they get those numbers
(e.g., efficiency) affects how the rest of the team performs. Not saying that Hollinger
has accurately captured this measurement, but I guess that's the intent.

93BUICK wrote:

TheGame wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:You know Hollinger is a moron because he created his corny little "true shooting percentage."

The NBA doesn't use that. Why would you create it ?

That is what kills me with him. This guy is constanting making up nonexistent stats for players, and then when you look at who his stats show is good, you get things like Jackie Butler is a top-10 center. I mean if I could get a job just making up stuff everyday, I would be a happy person.

If you got a job making stuff up every day you´d be a jazz musician.

Well, he's certainly got the improv skills of a jazz musician... the difference is he's up on stage thinking what he's playing is art and screaming at the audience to stop booing because of how magnificent his art is.

When the results of his formula are clearly effed the rest of the world is not wrong, his statistical formula is