Hollinger suddenly loves us (Insider)

3. The race for the second-best record in the West is starting to winnow down to a few teams, as clubs like Dallas, Phoenix and Utah fall off the pace and Houston struggles to keep up.

But one team that's surprisingly still in the hunt is Portland. And after Saturday's blowout win over Utah, we have to increasingly consider the possibility that they aren't going away. The Blazers are No. 5 in today's Power Rankings and project to win 52 games on the season, according to the Playoff Odds -- which would put them within one game of Denver and San Antonio in the battle for the second seed.

Portland is getting increasing contributions from Greg Oden and has enough depth to survive whatever bumps and bruises hit them over the final two months. And if they can parlay Raef LaFrentz's expiring contract into more help at the point or at small forward, the Blazers could improve on their current projection.

So while teams like San Antonio, New Orleans, Houston and even Denver get more attention, the Blazers are staying under the radar. But they aren't going away.

about 1 year ago leeroyjenkins 13 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Hollinger is a chameloeon

He was knocking us all pre-season and early on… now he’s running to us like he’s Prince Charming.

Go away Hollinger.

Don't Jump!

by Bust a Bucket on Feb 2, 2009 2:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The recent stretch has been terrific because

the Blazers are pounding it into the paint. Hollinger’s numbers see our recent blowouts and decide that we are a contender.

by Cablinasian on Feb 2, 2009 2:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Hollinger

bases pretty much EVERYTHING he says off his various statistical algorithms. It’s not like he hated us before or loves us now, in both cases he just wrote the opinion that his formulas supported.

Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.

by douglast on Feb 2, 2009 2:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

it's not quite that simple

for example, my post above, I think, clearly illustrates that he does interject his basketball opinion into his analysis. He took 2 similar cases on the Blazers and Warriors (youth and breakout performances) and went in opposite directions with them. Youth for GS was an advantage because those players should be improving dramatically, but youth for the Blazers is a hindrance because they are inexperienced. Hollinger says our guys who had great seasons last year (Przybilla, Blake, etc) are due to come down, but players for GS who played well (Wright, Biedrins) should continue to break out.

He could have flipped the arguments or used the same argument for both teams, but he chose to be (relatively) down on the Blazers and (relatively) high on GS. Actually, what might be more accurate is that he went with GS upside and the Blazers downside. He basically pegged the Blazers to do about as bad is as conceivable for the team to do, a .500 record and pegged the Warriors to do about as well as could be expected with Monta Ellis out for half the season, a .500 record.

"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"

by Magnum on Feb 2, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

when he does his pre-season projections, he’s looking at last years numbers and then using his own judgment to predict the next season.

He said crap like Joel and Steve had “career best years” last year and will return to normal. Well guess what? Steve is shooting it better than ever this season—43% from beyond the arc.

If he just analyzes the past using his formulas I don’t have a problem with him. It’s when he makes predictions based on his own judgment that sucks.

Don't Jump!

by Bust a Bucket on Feb 2, 2009 3:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

great points

And I agree with your assessment of the GS/Portland duplicity. But I think the difference may be pre-season prediction vs. in season. In pre-season, he seams to take a much more loose stance in regards to the numbers, and adds a lot more weight for his gut feel opinion.

Once he has enough actual current-season data however, he seems to really go with that data almost exclusively.

It seems like before the season, his gut was telling him we couldn’t keep pace with so many rookies and young guys playing major roles. Now, he’s been (thus far) proven wrong by his own numbers system, and he essentially is admitting it when he says “we have to increasingly consider the possibility that they aren’t going away.”

Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.

by douglast on Feb 2, 2009 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

As I recall...

Hollingers premise was that we overachieved last year. I think that was a reasonably fair statement, as 41 wins was a great season for the talent level and youth. Teams don’t typically overachieve every year, so if something like 36 wins would have been viewed as “normal”, then it made sense that we would improve on 36 wins rather than 41 wins.

I think what this year has shown is that last year wasn’t an overachievement. Youth is an obvious measurable, so talent must be the factor that was understimated.

I don’t have any problem with Hollinger basing his opinions on his formulas. It’s a lot more to go on than many other opinion makers. Even a highly respected basketball guru whose opinions come from the gut is basing those opinions on the database inside his head that he doesn’t consciously understand the workings of. Hollingers just did his best to put his thoughts into a formula that every Joe can look at and pick apart.

The cowards never started
The weak died along the way
Only the strong survived
They were the Trailblazers

by lukeyhere on Feb 2, 2009 3:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sometimes even a stat hound

has to put down his spreadsheets and watch Travis elevate for two points, or Greg pull-down 15 rebounds in 25 minutes, or Brandon slice-and-dice a defense for an and-1.

by MiledAnimal on Feb 2, 2009 8:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I love this team

for those reasons and so much more…

"His name is Jeremiah Johnson and they say he wanted to be a mountain man." -Neil Everett

by SabonisBonus on Feb 2, 2009 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I 2nd what bust a bucket said

Hollinger had us pegged for something like 42 wins this year, but GS without Monta Ellis for 3 months for 40.
This is his Blazer prediction: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/trainingcamp08/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=TrailBlazersForecast0809

This is his GS prediction: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/trainingcamp08/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=WarriorsForecast0809

I’ve talked about this before, but Hollinger was fairly high on GS coming into the year for the same 2 reasons he was down on the Blazers: youth and breakout perfomances.

Here is ESPN’s team preview
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-PortlandPreview0809

Hollinger is by far the most down on the Blazes of all the sports writers featured in the ESPN preview.

"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"

by Magnum on Feb 2, 2009 2:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

To be fair

Youth and Inexperience hurt you more as you get to the higher levels of basketball, where you need night in and night out consistency in order to get every win you’re supposed to get and some you aren’t. On the other hand, youth and potential is likely to get you some games that you wouldn’t normally be expected to get, but at the same time, you’ll be inconsistent and drop several that you were supposed to win.

by Gelvalst on Feb 2, 2009 6:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I can't access insider

The Kings have the best bench I’ve seen. There are easily 14 guys on this team good enough for every bench in the league. Now if we could only get some starters, I’d totally jizz in my pants.

Kings fan

by dyshooter182 on Feb 2, 2009 8:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs