Dr. WTFckle and Mr. Hollinger
Let me start by saying that one of the only things worth reading on ESPN.com is John Hollinger's scouting reports on the player pages. They are insightful and spot on and really show Hollinger's knowledge of the game.
Unfortunately, outside of those scouting reports, Hollinger has become little more than an ESPN gimmick. He holds stats in such a high regard that he overlooks what he sees with his own eyes. He concocts idiotic arguments to defend his statistics even when they seem to be obviously incorrect.
Now it seems like John has picked up another annoying ESPN habit: acting like nobody else in the world ever watches basketball. The Sports Guy has a running joke about being one of the few people who still watches the NBA but the reason that it's not funny is because he actually believes it. He and Hollinger seem to believe that nobody watches the NBA but them. Even worse, they constantly write stories as if their readers are just stumbling across the league for the first time. Give us a break. It's ESPN. A sports network. Your stories are on ESPN.com, usually under the NBA section. The people who read your stuff are fans. Most are die hard fans.
In his latest Per Diem, John Hollinger makes a case for an unknown star... Chris Paul. Chris Paul! A guy who most people know by his nickname CP3 is somehow a "cult' hero. Hollinger writes:
As a result, Paul may stay a cult hero for a while longer. Yes, he gets a few scraps of national TV exposure and the occasional endorsement, but he remains mostly a "League Pass" legend known best to TiVo junkies and his small band of admirers on the Bayou.
Thus, I must implore you again -- watch this guy, and appreciate him while he's in his prime. Those in the know are seeing the best point guard since Magic Johnson, and arguably the best little man of all time … and the lack of attention to his exploits continues to bewilder me.
Does he really think that the people who click on his stories really don't realize how good Chris Paul is? I disagree. In fact, I'd argue they know more than Hollinger. For instance, John starts his article with this:
So it's weird to me to see that we probably have the best player ever of his kind playing right now … and yet he's weirdly gone unheralded. We couldn't wait to throw MVPs at Nash and Iverson and darn near gave one to Jason Kidd, too. But Chris Paul? Somehow, it doesn't seem everyone is totally on board with him.
John Hollinger might be beside himself about the lack of love Chris Paul gets but I think most NBA fans read that comment and wonder to themselves, "Wait, didn't CP3 come in second in MVP voting last year?" Because he did. He was second to only Kobe. He was ahead of KG and the golden child LeBron James.
Hollinger also overlooked the fact that Paul is part of arguably the second most heated debate (behind Kobe vs. Lebron vs. Wade) in the NBA. He overlooks it because despite Chris Paul's great stats and despite his MVP votes, there is someone else looming in the background. There's a guy who gets less exposure than Paul, less time on the major networks, and fewer endorsement. Oh, and right now his team has won more games.
Personally, I think Chris Paul is the best point guard in the league but I can't help but read Hollinger's argument and see it as less of a love letter to Paul and more as a somewhat disengenuous and passive-aggressive argument against he who shall not be named: Deron Williams.
Of course, it makes sense why he would leave Williams's name out. After all, the Jazz are currently on a 12 game win streak, are two games better than the Hornets, and Deron's done it without Carlos Boozer for most of the season. It makes sense because the Hornets, despite Paul's heroics, aren't on pace to win as many games as last year might not have home court in the playoffs whereas the Jazz are closing in on 3rd place in the West.
So let's not mention Deron Williams at all. And don't even think about mentioning Tony Parker. Chris Paul is a beast. Everyone knows it. But apparently John Hollinger has to act like he's reinventing the wheel and clueing everyone else in to that fact rather than address the prospect of someone else being just as good even though they don't have the stats.
Honestly, Hollinger shows that he knows the game. He is a good writer. If only he'd take his head out of his stats and actually write insightful pieces about the game of basketball, he'd be worth a damn.
----
Oh, and for those of you playing at home, Hollinger's Top 15 draft prospects per his draft regression formula were (in order): Beasley, Love, Arthur, Speights, Augustin, Rose, Alexander, B. Lopez, Chalmers, Bayless, Hibbert, Koufos, Greene, Darnell Jackson, and DeAndre Jordan.
I know that his regression stat predicted the third year PER and that things can change but it can't be a good sign when three of the top five projected vote getters for ROY (Mayo, Westbrook, Gordon) aren't even in your top 15.
