Hollinger grades the Kidd trade

[harsh euro barge]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Hollinger doesn't watch any games.

Not true at all...Hollinger's probably watched J. Kidd more than anybody on this board, since he covers the Nets for the NY Sun.
Having said that, I'm optimistic that the Mavs can win a championship this year, making the trade worthwhile

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Here I have to agree with you. Parker isn´t a real point guard, in the proper meaning of the word, either. He is like Devin a great penetrator with outstanding quickness and can shoot, but has not very good passing or playmaking abilities. He only has an assists average of 6 after playing his 7th year now. And I think such kind of point guards work best with very good post up players like Duncan, whereas teams including great shooters like Dirk are better with a disher and creator as point guard (to take advantage of the biggest strength of Dirk: shooting).

and Ginobili. That guy creates for himself pretty well, and ends up carrying the team quite often. If Josh had climbed up to Ginobili's level, then we probably wouldn't have made the trade.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

no more than your mom. compared to her, Kidd is a spring chicken.

My mom once pole-danced for Jason Kidd and Mark Cuban at Scores in Manhattan. It all ended badly over a french fry. This was before she had micro-fracture surgery on both hips. (Don't ask!)

[birdsanctuary]

Originally Posted by LRB

Hollinger is an idiot.

I wouldn't go so far as calling him an idiot, however one can get bogged down in the numbers and fail to see the real intangibles.

Last night's game was quite revealing...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Bookit

The one huge positive from this trade is Kidd and Terry can be on the floor at the same time. If Avery keeps it that way and there aren't any major injuries, this trade will help this season and next. I just don't like giving up the 2010 first round pick.

Very under-appreciated point. It FINALLY solves our problem with Jason.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

and Ginobili. That guy creates for himself pretty well, and ends up carrying the team quite often.

Word. You will notice that the Spurs mostly lose, if Ginobili is injured or plays bad. In my opinion Ginobili is after Duncan at least just as important for the Spurs as Parker.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by Tokey41

The second best writer on ESPN also agrees that this trade isn't deserving of so much high praise...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/080223

Simmons to Mavs fans: "Just don't think you're winning a title, because it's not happening."

This guy has really become a prick since his teams started winning.

[LRB]

Originally Posted by birdsanctuary

I wouldn't go so far as calling him an idiot, however one can get bogged down in the numbers and fail to see the real intangibles.

Last night's game was quite revealing...

id·i·ot
–noun
1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.

Hollinger certainly seems foolish is his pronouncements more times than not, and what he says often doesn't make sense. He's a genius at abstract ivory tower nonpratical fields of knowledge, but doesn't have the sense God gave a rock when it comes to common sense or practical matters. Therefore he's an idiot.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Hollinger certainly seems foolish is his pronouncements more times than not, and what he says often doesn't make sense. He's a genius at abstract ivory tower nonpratical fields of knowledge, but doesn't have the sense God gave a rock when it comes to common sense or practical matters. Therefore he's an idiot.

More like an idiot savant. Yeah... def.. def... definitely an idiot savant.

[endrity]

I don't get the hatred for Hollinger. I think he watches more games than Bucher and Broussard combined. Tell me one national pundit that is clearely better than him (Stein doesn't count; since he lives in Dallas he clearely knows the Mavs very well).

Just because Hollinger says something negative about the Mavs, it doesn't make him an idiot. He, and Simmons as well, are expressing some of the well known doubts about this trade. Their target audience is not us, the diehard fans of the Mavs who know every little detail about our team, but all of the followers of the NBA. They are telling them that Kidd might not be as good anymore. Judging the last two seasons that is a reasonable argument to make. They are saying that Harris and Diop were big pieces to the Mavs. Go to SpursTalk to see how much the Spurs fans wanted to see those guys gone.

Don't go overboard calling people idiots just because they don't kiss Mavs ass all day long. This team has A LOT to prove after shrinking the last two years. And while Simmons never really liked us, Hollinger has been one of the main Dirk backers for a long time, and has had a lot of praise for us these last two years. I think he knows the Mavs well enough.

[LRB]

Originally Posted by endrity

I don't get the hatred for Hollinger. I think he watches more games than Bucher and Broussard combined. Tell me one national pundit that is clearely better than him (Stein doesn't count; since he lives in Dallas he clearely knows the Mavs very well).

Just because I call someone an idiot, doesn't mean that I hate them. And just because most national analysts are bigger idiots, doesn't make Hollinger a non-idiot. My biggest problem with this article is Hollinger's use of JKidd's 6 turnovers in his 1st game with the mavs with less than 2 hours of practice as being proof of JKidd's supposed endemic problem of excessiver turnovers. That's is just plain idiotic, because only a total idiot would think that you could tell that this wasn't anything more than players not being used to each other. Maybe after 10 games if JKidd is still putting up close to these number of TO's you might be able to tell something. This is the only thing, just the worst thing for me. Hollinger's doesn't have enough common sense not to pee on an electric fense more than once.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by endrity

Their target audience is not us, the diehard fans of the Mavs who know every little detail about our team, but all of the followers of the NBA..

Hollinger I get, and cut him some slack, and give him some respect, even, for his numerical analysis. He does a great job, and lets us all know what the numbers say. Whether we agree with them or not, and whether the numerical conclusions make any sense or not, now we know what they say, and we can use them like we want. Hollinger's business is to reduce things to a number or two, and he doesn't stray from that.

Simmons, however, takes a more qualitative approach, and says some things here that transcend the ignorance expected from national media coverage. I mean really - because some of the mavs are shooting 47%, a good point guard can't help them get better shots? The superficiality and the incompleteness of that single paragraph of his warrants a kick to the groin for its writer. Then he goes on for several paragraphs about how these mavs can't run. It's not just that he's not watching the games (if he did, he'd know that Dirk's not a slow PF, that Josh can finish a fast break, and that Terry can get to the basket), it's that he doesn't think through his position far enough to reach the obvious possibility that they haven't been running because they've had a bunch of finishers for the fast break, but no leaders for the fast break. Bragging for 2 more paragraphs about how much time he spent pondering the issue only makes him that much more of an idiot.

[bernardos70]

Stein counts, because I bet you he knows about every team more than than Bucher (one notch above acerebral) and Broussard.

[Tokey41]

Originally Posted by Stranger

Simmons to Mavs fans: "Just don't think you're winning a title, because it's not happening."

This guy has really become a prick since his teams started winning.

I agree and thats one of the reasons I was happy the Pats lost, those weekly articles on the Pats being superior were getting annoying.

But he's just being honest when he says he doesn't think the Mavs will win the title. I don't think we have a great shot either and i'm a fan. In that same article didn't he say the Cavs could win the east? So he's not a complete Boston homer (although the whole KG trade triggering every big move this season is a little over the top and ridiculous). News flash Bill, no one cares about the east, everyone in the west is trying to keep up with everyone else in the west. Just be glad your Celtics don't have as much competition as the Mavs do in their conference.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by Tokey41

I agree and thats one of the reasons I was happy the Pats lost, those weekly articles on the Pats being superior were getting annoying.

But he's just being honest when he says he doesn't think the Mavs will win the title. I don't think we have a great shot either and i'm a fan. In that same article didn't he say the Cavs could win the east? So he's not a complete Boston homer (although the whole KG trade triggering every big move this season is a little over the top and ridiculous). News flash Bill, no one cares about the east, everyone in the west is trying to keep up with everyone else in the west. Just be glad your Celtics don't have as much competition as the Mavs do in their conference.

I don't think the Mavs are favorites, so I don't object to the general logic. But the tone is completely dismissive of the Mavs' chances, and that is what is irritating. It's not as if the Mavs are the Grizzlies or the Timberwolves. We have as good a chance as most in what is shaping up to be the most wide-open race in years. For Simmons' to completely dismiss the Mavs' shot at the title after one game with Kidd ("It isn't happening"), and to direct that shot at the fans, is short-sighted and arrogant.

I'm not saying that the two are equivalent (we're not in the Finals), but he gave the same dismissive, "don't get your hopes" stuff to Giants fans in predicting a 30-point Patriots win.

[endrity]

Well, almost every national media pundit has said that the Mavs are not favorites. I have yet to see a writer saying that the Kidd trade puts them over the top, or anything close. Everyone seems to love the Lakers, and for good reasons. They are the big favourites right now, and the Spurs right behind them. So how can we dismiss what Simmons is saying?

Plus, the personnel question was asked by a lot of us here. Damp is slow. He is probably selling Dirk short but this is not 24 year old Dirk neither who took it baseline to baseline. Haven't we complained that JET is never attacking the basket anymore? I give credit to Simmons for knowing that.

As for Hollinger, what he is saying is that the turnovers have been there with Kidd all season long. They were not a suprpise against NO. I think his approach is great to be honest, I read him with a lot of pleasure. And the thing about his number is, that he is correct much more often than not. But what makes him look weird at times, is that his number usually tell a story much earlier than it becomes a national storyline. And for that I like him the most, because he truly is a myth buster of this league. The best example from this year was when he said Calderon was an All Star. People called him a lunatic, but secrectly started to watch some of the Raptors games and saw what the numbers were telling. Calderon is probably the best pure PG in the east, now that Kidd has left and is playing at an amazing level.
Consider last year, when he said the Bulls would sweep the Heat, GS was a favourite against the Mavs, and the Spurs were actually the better team of the season. All those predicition, very bold ones I must add, came true.
If I would trust the work of any ESPN writer, Hollinger is the first.

While stats don't say everything about a fluid game like basketball, they help a lot in understanding the game. I trully enjoy the work of 82games.com, David Barry's Wages of Wins. Everyone should give these things a read because they truly are eye openers.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by endrity

Well, almost every national media pundit has said that the Mavs are not favorites. I have yet to see a writer saying that the Kidd trade puts them over the top, or anything close. Everyone seems to love the Lakers, and for good reasons. They are the big favourites right now, and the Spurs right behind them. So how can we dismiss what Simmons is saying?

Plus, the personnel question was asked by a lot of us here. Damp is slow. He is probably selling Dirk short but this is not 24 year old Dirk neither who took it baseline to baseline. Haven't we complained that JET is never attacking the basket anymore? I give credit to Simmons for knowing that.

As for Hollinger, what he is saying is that the turnovers have been there with Kidd all season long. They were not a suprpise against NO. I think his approach is great to be honest, I read him with a lot of pleasure. And the thing about his number is, that he is correct much more often than not. But what makes him look weird at times, is that his number usually tell a story much earlier than it becomes a national storyline. And for that I like him the most, because he truly is a myth buster of this league. The best example from this year was when he said Calderon was an All Star. People called him a lunatic, but secrectly started to watch some of the Raptors games and saw what the numbers were telling. Calderon is probably the best pure PG in the east, now that Kidd has left and is playing at an amazing level.
Consider last year, when he said the Bulls would sweep the Heat, GS was a favourite against the Mavs, and the Spurs were actually the better team of the season. All those predicition, very bold ones I must add, came true.
If I would trust the work of any ESPN writer, Hollinger is the first.

While stats don't say everything about a fluid game like basketball, they help a lot in understanding the game. I trully enjoy the work of 82games.com, David Barry's Wages of Wins. Everyone should give these things a read because they truly are eye openers.

I don't think he said either of those things. Maybe he did say the Bulls would sweep, but I doubt it. In fact, his ranking system had the Mavs well above GS.

[endrity]

No, he wrote a story right after game 1 of both the Spurs and the Mavs series. I remember it very well. He said that the Mavs have struggled mightily against GS, throw away the first half of the season for GS because this is a new team with Baron healthy and SJax, and consider the fact that they won game 1 and they had something like 60% chance to win the series.
He did the same for the Nuggets, but they were in the 40s, meaning that the Spurs were still favourites.
As for the Heat, he said they have 0% chance of winning against the Bulls and that a sweep was very likely, maybe the Heat win one.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by endrity

No, he wrote a story right after game 1 of both the Spurs and the Mavs series. I remember it very well. He said that the Mavs have struggled mightily against GS, throw away the first half of the season for GS because this is a new team with Baron healthy and SJax, and consider the fact that they won game 1 and they had something like 60% chance to win the series.
He did the same for the Nuggets, but they were in the 40s, meaning that the Spurs were still favourites.
As for the Heat, he said they have 0% chance of winning the Spurs and that a sweep was very likely, maybe the Heat win one.

I'm not going to give him much credit for making a prediction after game 1. I thought the Mavs would still win after Game 1, but I'm a homer. Anyone who predicted a GS win before the series gets props.

[endrity]

If you consider that a lot of writers were saying that the Mavs would win even after being down 3-1, what he said is as impressive as it comes. He was way ahead of the curve, which is the point that I am trying to make.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by endrity

If you consider that a lot of writers were saying that the Mavs would win even after being down 3-1, what he said is as impressive as it comes. He was way ahead of the curve, which is the point that I am trying to make.

I'll give him that, for sure. But he's been wrong just as many times as he's been right. Just like everyone else.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by endrity

If you consider that a lot of writers were saying that the Mavs would win even after being down 3-1, what he said is as impressive as it comes. He was way ahead of the curve, which is the point that I am trying to make.

that's the thing with how Hollinger works the numbers. A lot of his "bets" are laid after the start of gametime - late in the fourth, really.

Plus, the personnel question was asked by a lot of us here. Damp is slow. He is probably selling Dirk short but this is not 24 year old Dirk neither who took it baseline to baseline. Haven't we complained that JET is never attacking the basket anymore? I give credit to Simmons for knowing that.

did you watch the game last night? I'm sorry, but Simmons just makes a dumb argument - Just because they haven't been running doesn't mean they can't.

[monty55555]

For those unfamiliar with Hollinger and his regard for Kidd, he doesn't like Kidd. For some reason, he rarely writes anything good about Kidd. Even when Kidd was still with NJ, he would continuously bash or downgrade Kidd and the Nets in his articles.

So I'm not surprised at all by this. If he had little respect for the Mavs then, bringing Kidd here would probably fuel more "hatred" ..

[endrity]

Originally Posted by monty55555

For those unfamiliar with Hollinger and his regard for Kidd, he doesn't like Kidd. For some reason, he rarely writes anything good about Kidd. Even when Kidd was still with NJ, he would continuously bash or downgrade Kidd and the Nets in his articles.

So I'm not surprised at all by this. If he had little respect for the Mavs then, bringing Kidd here would probably fuel more "hatred" ..

No, he has liked the Mavs a lot more than just about anybody besides Stein. Him and Greg Anthony I should say. What he has said about the Nets, not Kidd, for years is that they are declining in talent level. That had to do a lot more with Carter, and a underutilization of Richard Jefferson more than anything. Only this year he said that Kidd was having a bad year, which by Kidd's standards he was. But he still said our trade is better than Shaq's and there was chance he could change the Mavs offense for good, which is what we are all hoping.

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

that's the thing with how Hollinger works the numbers. A lot of his "bets" are laid after the start of gametime - late in the fourth, really.

to say that the Spurs were the best team heading in the playoffs, to say that heat will be swept, to pick up on Calderon as an All Star, says he is making a lot of his bets a lot more quickly than other guys are

And Terry has stoped attacking the basket since 06. He could then, but he has to show he can. We have been complaining about it non stop this year. And since he hasn't he is not going to get the benefit of the doubt until he does. That is a legitimate point.

Originally Posted by Prodigy Dub

I'll give him that, for sure. But he's been wrong just as many times as he's been right. Just like everyone else.

I'd say he has been more right than the other dudes working for ESPN, MSN, CBS...

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by endrity

I'd say he has been more right than the other dudes working for ESPN, MSN, CBS...

Not really. People just aren't inclined to remember all the times he's been wrong because he's not flamboyant and cocky about his predictions.

[monty55555]

No, he has liked the Mavs a lot more than just about anybody besides Stein. Him and Greg Anthony I should say. What he has said about the Nets, not Kidd, for years is that they are declining in talent level. That had to do a lot more with Carter, and a underutilization of Richard Jefferson more than anything. Only this year he said that Kidd was having a bad year, which by Kidd's standards he was. But he still said our trade is better than Shaq's and there was chance he could change the Mavs offense for good, which is what we are all hoping.

I'm quite unfamiliar with his regard for the Mavs. But as far as I've followed the Nets and Kidd, I can barely count the number of times he has given credit to Kidd or the Nets. More often, he has said negative things about them.

Well, to each his own I guess. Some writers are overly gracious with some teams while some are overly critical

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by endrity

to say that the Spurs were the best team heading in the playoffs, to say that heat will be swept, to pick up on Calderon as an All Star, says he is making a lot of his bets a lot more quickly than other guys are

no doubt. I love his numbers work, like I said above. He's not nostradamus, though. And I bet his overall record is not much better than the guessers.

And Terry has stoped attacking the basket since 06. He could then, but he has to show he can. We have been complaining about it non stop this year. And since he hasn't he is not going to get the benefit of the doubt until he does. That is a legitimate point.

First, did you watch the game last night? Did you watch the last game, which started with a lob to Josh, and included Dirk attacking the basket almost every chance? And second, to say that they haven't been running and to leave it an open question is different than what Simmons did, which is to argue that they can't. He also said, "Dirk is slow." That's fine if you are comparing him to the shooting guards that go around him. But that's just dumb when you are talking about whether he can run on the break. I don't care what he's written elsewhere, what he put into this article deserves to be ridiculed, not defended.

[endrity]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

First, did you watch the game last night? Did you watch the last game, which started with a lob to Josh, and included Dirk attacking the basket almost every chance? And second, to say that they haven't been running and to leave it an open question is different than what Simmons did, which is to argue that they can't. He also said, "Dirk is slow." That's fine if you are comparing him to the shooting guards that go around him. But that's just dumb when you are talking about whether he can run on the break. I don't care what he's written elsewhere, what he put into this article deserves to be ridiculed, not defended.

I watch every Mavs game! Even with Kidd the Mavs will never be an elite running team, I think. How succesful we will be, is key to the season. The Josh lob, Dirk's aggressivness has not come in the running game. We clearely have to prove we can run well since we really don't have Nuggs/Suns/GS personnel, so for someone to say that the Mavs can't I won't be terribly pissed about. There were people expressing this same concern on the forum when the trade idea started to surface. Nothing new. This is the media that bashes Dirk non stop for 2 years now so this to me is least possible diss.

Simmons is wrong when he is saying that Dirk is slow, I already said that. If anything Dirk's footwork is what really separates him from other PFs. There are other PFs who can shoot really well (Sheed) but who have not even close to Dirk's mobility and footwork and therefore can never properly use the jumper

[Tokey41]

-

[Tokey41]

Originally Posted by monty55555

I'm quite unfamiliar with his regard for the Mavs. But as far as I've followed the Nets and Kidd, I can barely count the number of times he has given credit to Kidd or the Nets. More often, he has said negative things about them.

Well, to each his own I guess. Some writers are overly gracious with some teams while some are overly critical

Simmons has never really hated on the Mavs... in fact right before the Miami series he was comparing Dirk with Bird in the way he pushed his team to the finals, pretty high praise, especially from a Celtics fan.

On the other hand Rosen has always hated everything about the Mavs, never acknowledging them as a contender. Now with the Kidd trade he is applauding them for once (because we added 'heart' and leadership)... crazy isn't it? I think he's the only writer i've seen that has given the Mavs an A for this trade.

Hollingers the one writer I don't think has any biases, he follows the stats. It's not a bad system, he did predict the Spurs to win it all last season with his reasoning.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by endrity

I watch every Mavs game!

then you saw them run a lot more in their second game with Kidd than they've run in all the other games this year put together. Simmons' garbage would be forgivable if he wrote it as a question - or as doubts about the trade, but he went on and on about it.

[92bDad]

Bottom line, Kidd is NOT a scorer like Harris...but Kidd is a bigger overall playmaker and creator which results in making everyone around you better.

With Kidd, Terry can lock up the SG position and not have to worry about bouncing around as a 6th man/PG/SG waiting on Harris and his upside to show up.

We now have one of the best Guard tandems in the league. Kidd/Terry will be shades if not better than the old days of Harper/Blackman.

The team is better today than they where a few days ago...how they finish, we will see.

Keep in mind that the competition in the West is perhaps the best it has ever been. Do you realize that if the top 16 teams made the playoffs that 11 would come of the West...the sad part is that NJ with Harris has a chance to make the playoffs with a losing record, while the Mavs with Kidd have a chance of missing the playoffs with winning record.

At the end of the day, this is a great trade for both teams and Dallas has put themselves in a position to make a run at the title, one game at a time.

[FINtastic]

I'm going to grade the Hollinger article about the Kidd trade:

F-

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

I'm going to grade the Hollinger article about the Kidd trade:

F-

I give it a T.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

I'm going to grade the Hollinger article about the Kidd trade:

F-

Actually I think you meant to grade it:

FU.