Comments on: ShanWOW! You’ll Be Saying Wow Every Time.

By: Lakers&DodgersFan

Lakers&DodgersFan — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:27:04 +0000

Thelakersnation.com hosted a poll on what should be Shannon Brown’s new nickname. ShamWOW, Cannon Brown, TNT Legs, Go-Go-Gadget Calf Muscles, and Slammin’ Brown were the possible nicknames. Cannon Brown won. I think that’s a great nickname for Shannon Brown! Do you?

By: Travis

Travis — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:40:00 +0000

Prediction:

Lebron will win the dunk contest this year based on reputation, but Shannon Brown will be the fan favorite, creating controversy.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:23:27 +0000

Tsuwm, I haven’t done that out of sheer laziness, but I will in the future.

By: tsuwm

tsuwm — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:54:31 +0000

Kurt, et al..
maybe you guys haven’t thought of this (or maybe it’s too much extra effort), but when you announce “new post up” why not provide a link *there?

By: Kurt

Kurt — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:45:58 +0000

New post up.

By: Franky

Franky — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:41:02 +0000

I seem to remember Hollinger saying last year that he would put something in his system that would negate the effect of excessive blow outs. Ultimatley there is no difference if a team wins by 20 or 35, but in his system those extra 15 points are huge. Maybe he’s still searching for a way around it, or he might have just forgoten about it.

I don’t realy mind Hollingers rankings or PER at all. The only thing I don’t like is that he’s so dependent on it. We all know there are factors that are not included in his calculations, but he seems to think his numbers are the be all end all.

By: Rudy

Rudy — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:34:05 +0000

I for one was and still am very happy about the Lakers acquiring Artest in place of Ariza. He’s been the perfect fit. I feel like his unselfish nature has been beneficial because there doesn’t seem to be enough shots to go around at times.

I know we’re not even halfway through the season, but based on our starting five I really feel like this Lakers team can go down as one of the greatest teams of all time. We’re not lacking anything. I fear that not winning the championship will go down as a big negative for Kobe’s legacy, as he is considered one of the top players if not the top player in the league and having the most talented team in the league.

By: PJ

PJ — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:30:21 +0000

At least we can put to rest (for now) the kvetching from the beginning of the season about the Lakers not blowing teams out like the Celtics were doing.

The Lakers have been known for playing down to the competition for the last 20 years (even last year). It is good to see them putting away bad teams in the 1st quarter.

By: tsuwm

tsuwm — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:53:19 +0000

a while back (after the Knicks game) I posted this:

I continue to be flummoxed by Hollinger’s power rankings – http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings – in the latest installment the Lake’s 10-pt win over the Knicks looks like a loss, as they tumble from 5th to 8th. Hollinger claims the numbers don’t lie, but there’s *got* to be a built in fudge factor he’s not revealing. (pay particular attention to the numbers of the last 10 games of the teams that passed LA, where the ‘bias’ is supposedly built in.)

I bring this back now to raise two points..
1) at the time this was posted, it generated only a couple of comments, to the effect that all rankings are meaningless (this was to be expected, as LA was ranked 8th).
b) LA moved to 2nd in the ranking on Sunday, due entirely to the blowout W over GSW.

I now realize that herein lies the real problem with Hollinger’s system – entirely too much emPHAsis is placed on the most recent game or two (not just the most recent 10, as he would have you believe).

By: Craig W

Craig W — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:33:37 +0000

As a stats guy, Hollinger determined that final point spread was the key logical determinant to the better teams – would they blow you out? All formulas have to start with some basic hypothesis.

This just didn’t work out and he had to add in other objective factors to approximate the real world. Over time, I would argue that the coach, and his philosophy/approach, have a fair amount to do with the final point spread. Phil and Popovich – as obvious examples – treat the regular season as a place to experiment and rest vets as much as possible. This naturally leads to lower margins of victory than would otherwise be true. Other coaches have to win by as much as possible to keep their jobs and draw in fans. I really don’t know how Hollinger would be able to objectively quantify this. I would love to hear his comment on this.