Al Thornton

by Steve Perrin on Oct 16, 2007 1:16 PM PDT in News

Jonathon Abrams focuses today's LA Times coverage on rookie Al Thornton. Al's been getting LOTS of pre-season minutes, and has responded well. He won't shoot 11 for 15 every game, but he won't shoot 4 for 13 every game either. And if you want to read further into those numbers, it's maybe understandable that he had some jitters in his first game in an NBA uniform. All in all, it's hard to ask for more from a rookie, even in pre-season. Comparing his numbers to the other top picks, no rookie has yet to have a game like Al's 24 points in 27 minutes versus the Warriors.

We've discussed before the fact that John Hollinger believes Thornton is going to be a bust. He has said things like "neon warning sign" and "bust-detector into overdrive" regarding Al's age. It's a simple enough argument - Hollinger is saying that Thornton's numbers at Florida State last year, when he was 23, are the equivalent of a man playing against boys, since much of his competition was 2 or more years younger.

But there's one incredibly obvious point that Hollinger is leaving out - the NBA is a man's league. If he's so concerned that Thornton had an unfair advantage playing against 19 and 20 year olds, why would he rate two 19 year olds and three 20 year olds as the top five players in the draft? It makes no sense. "Younger players have a distinct dis-advantage playing against older players, so therefore 20 year old Thaddeus Young is the 4th best prospect to put on your NBA roster to play against guys 5 and 10 years older than he is." Huh?

Oh, and by the way, if we're worried about Al Thornton padding his college numbers against sub-par competition, let's bear in mind a couple of things - (1) he played in the ACC, and led the conference in scoring. I can understand worrying about Jared Jordan's level of competition in the MAAC, but we're talking about the leading scorer in the best conference in the nation. Come on. (2) Hollinger rated Thaddeus Young (Georgia Tech) and Brandan Wright (North Carolina) as the 4th and 5th best prospects in this draft. They both happen to be 20. So apparently Thornton was padding his numbers by lighting up these unprepared young pups that John Hollinger thinks were significantly better than Thornton (rated 25). How's that for tortured logic?

OK, I understand (almost) where he's going with this. Like so many others, he's bowing down at the altar of 'potential'. The 19 year olds have it, the 24 year old doesn't. But the simple fact of the matter is that many 19 year olds don't develop any further, nor is there any specific reason that older players can't develop further (Elton Brand brought a totally new mid-range jump shot into his 7th season at the age of 26). So unless he's counting on a growth spurt from a 19 year old draft pick (it happens, but not very often), I don't see what the big deal is. It's as if he's saying "Sure, Al Thornton was better than Thaddeus Young and Brandan Wright in college, but he's older than they are. They'll get better, and even if they are never as good as Al Thornton, at least they're getting better - that's what matters." Well, actually, no. What matters is results.

All of this would make a little more sense if Al Thornton weren't (a) by most accounts the best athlete in this draft class and (b) well-known as a hard worker. So unless we're getting concerned about early onset arthritis, I fail to see the problem. His athleticism is virtually limitless - we're not concerned that he needs to develop his body more. He's done developing his body, and we're tickled pink with the results, right? As for developing his game, look at his college numbers - they improved significantly every year he played. Talk to his college coach, Leonard Hamilton - he has nothing but praise for the guy's work ethic. Al Thornton split his time between track and field and basketball as a high schooler (he was an all state high jumper, no surprise there) and almost went to Georgia on a track scholarship. In other words, he didn't focus exclusively on basketball until he got to college. He entered Florida State with an admittedly unpolished game - and he's shown a willingness to get out the Turtle Wax, with great results.

Hollinger usually has solid historical data to support his positions. If he says that Andre Miller is going to have a big drop off this year, it's because point guards his size have traditionally declined at about his age. That makes it all the more strange that he's going all 'intuition-y' on Thornton - your 'bust-detector' is in overdrive? Really? Maybe it's just something you ate. Besides, I seem to recall an All-ACC senior who put up some great numbers in college and turned out fine as a pro. I think his name was Duncan.

(Of course Clipper fans have an ax to grind with Hollinger right now anyway. This is the same guy that predicted 20 wins for the team, based partly on his low expectations for Thornton. Sure, I could be accused of bias hree, but I'm not the only blogger who thinks that 20 wins is way off base.)

It all amounts to age discrimination in the NBA draft. Part of it is simply a flawed assumption: if that guy is that good, why is he still in college? If he was worth a lottery pick, he'd already be in the pros. Part of it is the old adage, 'familiarity breeds contempt.' If Joakim Noah had declared for the draft in 2006, he would likely have been taken number one overall - by 2007, he dropped to 10, because everyone noticed, "Hey, he can't shoot." Well, he couldn't shoot before guys. You've just had time to get disillusioned, that's all.

I myself wondered in a post just after the draft if the opposite isn't true. Shouldn't NBA teams be seeking the older players? From the standpoint of return on investment, isn't it foolish to draft youngsters? Hollinger is actually supporting my point with his criticism of Thornton's college numbers. He's saying that younger players can't compete with more mature players. So why would you draft them, sign them to a multi-million dollar contract, and then sit them on the bench while you cross your fingers and hope that (a) they'll improve and (b) you'll be able to re-sign them (to much, much more money) when they do? The Clippers, on the other hand, have a guy that is ready to contribute for four full years on the rookie scale.

And he just happens to be a freak of an athlete and lighting up the pre-season. What's your 'bust-detector' doing now, John?

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

such a great post

i am so bullish on Thornton for all of the reasons you mention. He is going to be a very good NBA player.

What the hell does Hollinger know about college players anyway? He tried to use his formula to retroactively analyze recent drafts and whiffed hard.

Al will be good.

by mp on Oct 16, 2007 2:27 PM PDT reply actions

Hollinger and college....

If Nick Fazekas is a star in the NBA, then we can all hail Hollinger's genius. More likely, we'll all see that Fazekas put up good numbers in the WAC (or wherever Nevada plays).

by Steve Perrin on Oct 16, 2007 3:56 PM PDT reply actions

Love ClipsNation

See, the beauty of this is, that the new LAT beat writer Abrams--clearly, covering the Clips is still low-man-on-totem-pole duty--writes a nice article on Thornton, I can read that and pick up a few facts (high jumping, sequence of development), then wait until the afternoon when CS picks up where the LAT leaves off and carefully demolishes Hollinger. And then I get to chip in with a thought or two of my own.

Do we know what Hollinger said about the Korolev pick? Let's assume that he thought it was a disaster, like everybody else--and the main thrust of this year's article was that poor drafts will now condemn the Clips to a 20 win season, and the Korolev pick stands out in the group as especially horrible.

So how do you have it both ways? The Clips drafted the young guy with great size and length and skills beyond his years, who looked like a complete player. He never made it to where he even got a sniff. Now that was a disaster, okay. He was too young, and didn't develop.

And so the Clips learned their lesson. When Thornton was sitting there, they didn't overthink things, and they drafted him.

Why not applaud the Clips for the fact that Thornton dropped to them and that he might be mature enough to be able to help them out right away? Again, when the Clips drafted YK and Maggette got hurt, did no one say that they should have drafted Granger? Pretty much everybody did. And now, with Maggette headed towards free agency and possible trade bait, how is taking a guy who can fill the same role and contribute right away a bad idea?

And another factor in picking the mature Thornton is probably the higher pick/higher stakes drafts of Kaman and Livingston. Kaman briefly played well enough to be overpaid, but he's still not a mature, polished player (that was Hinrich, in his draft), so the Clips are waiting on him. And the Clips went for the young guy with Livingston, obviously, and the results have been fairly poor thus far. And let's say you're the Clips, and you ask yourself, what if we had taken Hinrich (college senior) and Okafor (college senior)? Okafor has obviously had his own share of injury problems, of course, but you'd already be so far ahead of the game with Hinrich it wouldn't matter. And remember that Wilcox was on the team, so the Wilcox-Kaman controversy would have been avoided.

It seems as if it has taken the Clips a fairly long time to figure this out, and if you get inside their history it's hard to fault them for taking this approach. I should add that they took another senior, Davis, and we have to see what happens with that. What does Hollinger say about him?

But Holliger won't make the effort to get inside the Clips and figure this out. Like most people who get paid to write about sports, he's lazy and he picks his spots. He's takes a quick look, sees that Brand and Liv are injured, wonders about how well they can withstand that blow based on their draft record, sees a pattern of futility, goes with the bottom estimate and takes a shot at Thornton and moves on. For all of these guys, they come in and look at the headlines and don't see much reason to revise the basic impulse of "it's the Clippers, come on." And it even more fun after the Clips dashed reasonable expectations last year.

But this is where the Clips are comfortable, with everybody writing them off and with no expectations, under the radar. And this is exactly where a guy like Thornton can step in to surprise people. And they'll soon see that he's not alone, that the Clips have a lot of weapons and are actually pretty deep. And if that works out, just as everybody gets used to that, EB will come back.

by zhivclip on Oct 16, 2007 5:03 PM PDT reply actions

Disagree, Zhiv

Hollinger is not lazy at least with respect to player analysis. He uses statistical analysis to spot trends. He doesn't pretend to evaluate individual players. He is merely advising you that based on his statistical analysis only he thinks that Thornton will be a bust. I think that his trends make alot of sense (much more sense to me then, for example, statistics that are based on the assumption that anyone on the floor is equally likely to grab any rebound as a way of analysing relativel rebound prowess).

I doubt that Hollinger would be able to effectively evaluate Korolev based on his system because he's never played in a US college and the numbers from Moscow probably are not very helpful.

What you're really faulting here is the opinion Hollinger provided on the team this year, which is not just based on player statistics. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that it will be very difficult for the Clippers to do well this year without their best player and only consistent go to guy. I would disagree with you that the Clippers are very deep - yes they have a large number of grizzled veterans - but they do not have good reliable players at key positions such as PF and C. We also know about their lack of depth at SG / three point shooting. We also know that historically the coaching has, shall we say, not been the greatest.

I think that sometimes we as Clipper fans tend to ignore the obvious (conventional wisdom) because we want so much for the team to be successful. While that is certainly a theoretical possibility that the Clippers will do as well as they did last year, honestly it seems doubtful, doesn't it? That's all Hollinger is saying. We can all hope he's wrong, but his analysis isn't off base. Admission is the first step to recovery.

by Jax on Oct 16, 2007 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions

Admirable Caution

I know you're working hard not to get fooled or excited by the Clips, Jax. I think I have a pretty good idea of your concerns, and they're legitimate.

I'm faulting a few things with Hollinger. First of all, the main thing is the prediction for 20 wins. So Hollinger isn't just saying that the team won't do as well as last year, he's saying that they will do considerably worse, about half as well, in fact. And I think he's not saying that because of extensive research or statistical analysis, but because the Clips are a franchise with the historical capacity of being that bad.

Now some of that may be based on assumptions about Brand's injury and when he will come back. But 20 wins is not very many--that's a lot of losing, and you have to turn the standings upside down and try to work hard to figure out where you're going to get those 60 losses.

If Hollinger was saying that the Clips, with Brand out for a good part of the season, won't be in the hunt for a playoff spot like they have been the last two seasons, and they'll have to work hard to surpass 30 wins, that would make sense. But that's not what he's saying.

Next, CS works the illogic of condemning the Thornton pick, and I tried to expand on it by comparing it to the Korolev pick. Hollinger's view of Thornton is based on his "bust-meter," which doesn't sound very scientific. And it's also based on the idea that Thornton might have been overrated as a #8-10 pick. But with the Clippers' specific needs, the Korolev pick hanging over them, and the Maggette situation, he really seems to be going out of his way to push the Clips into the scrap heap.

And I also have some questions about the gap left by Brand. Brand is great, he's the heart and soul of the team. But none of us would try to say that EB was as good last year as he was the year before. He just wasn't. And with a diminished Brand, and Kaman playing horribly, and Cassell hurt, Liv not playing well and then badly injured, plus missing a starter (Maggette), the Clips still won a lot of regular season games.

So if Cassell looked like he had chronic injuries, Maggette was still doghouse tradebait (and sulked or didn't show his impact when he was finally put into the starting lineup), and the Clips had done nothing to address the absence of Brand and Livingston, maybe then you could say they were toast from day one and automatic to qualify for the OJ Mayo sweepstakes.

But I happen to think that they have a lot going for them and people are selling them short. I'd like to get into some analysis about the grizzled veterans, but have to cut it short. We'll see how it goes, but one way to proceed is to try to count up those 60+ losses, especially with a team that has won 25+ home games the last couple of years.

by zhivclip on Oct 16, 2007 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Just to echo Zhiv's points....

As often happens, Zhiv and I are in lockstep on this one. 20 wins is a really bad season. Zhiv says half as well, and indeed it's half as many wins. But you can also say that it's far worse than half as well. The worst team in NBA history won 9 games after all. Looking at it another way, for the last 2 seasons, 20 wins would have qualified as the worst record in basketball. Meanwhile, the Clippers had the 16th best record in basketball last year. From 16 to 30? Wow. That's a big drop off. If Brand is out the entire year, maybe. But I doubt it even then.

The other point is that he DOESN'T provide any statistical analysis for his Thornton bashing. Just his bust-meter. His numbers are his numbers and I take them for what they are worth. But he's going with his gut on this one.

by Steve Perrin on Oct 16, 2007 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Um, no

Zhiv, I applaud your optimism. I just don't share it with this team. I agree that they will have more than 20 wins, but probably not more than 30 with the current lineup. Again, I hope I'm wrong. But I just can't wax poetic about the possibility that Paul Davis will find significant NBA success this year. Rather, as a Clipper I expect the GM and the coach to start doing things the right way.

But that's not your chief criticism of Hollinger. Everyone knows that this was just an opinion. You're criticizing rather what you call his bashing of Thornton. My point is that he's not bashing Thornton, he's just interpreting the results of his statistical analysis. Hollinger's prediction for Thornton this year is not just based on that short discussion in the thread about the Clippers. He took that, rather, from a detailed statistical analysis that he did a few months ago wherein he predicted how this year's crop of first and second round picks would do based on how first and second round picks had done in years past.

The analysis is here: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2007/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=Pro Rater

Thornton's age is only one factor in the overall analysis. Hollinger could be wrong on individual players, and he admits it. But the analysis is intriguing.

by Jax on Oct 16, 2007 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm no longer an Insider

I let my Insider account lapse... too much stuff to read on the interwebs without paying for it. But I may regret it if youse guys have better data than I do.

I'm assuming you're referring to the analysis that produced this table (which you yourself posted on a comments of another thread):

1 Kevin Durant Texas 870.7 2
2 Greg Oden Ohio State 667.9 1
3 Mike Conley Jr. Ohio State 637.9 7
4 Thaddeus Young Georgia Tech 604.2 14
5 Brandan Wright North Carolina 601.4 8
6 Al Horford Florida 601.0 3
7 Nick Fazekas Nevada 594.3 35
8 Josh McRoberts Duke 566.7 26
9 Rodney Stuckey E. Washington 557.7 16
10 Jared Dudley Boston College 542.6 31
11 Joakim Noah Florida 528.6 9
12 Glen Davis LSU 521.0 25
13 Sean Williams Boston College 511.3 20
14 Jeff Green Georgetown 505.5 6
15 Kyle Visser Wake Forest 503.5 57
16 Herbert Hill Providence 503.0 49
17 Javaris Crittenton Georgia Tech 492.2 18
18 Wilson Chandler DePaul 483.1 30
19 Julian Wright Kansas 481.4 11
20 Daequan Cook Ohio State 470.0 27
21 D.J. Strawberry Maryland 465.5 52
22 Jason Smith Colorado State 464.9 17
23 Alando Tucker Wisconsin 464.3 41
24 Corey Brewer Florida 462.4 5
25 Al Thornton Florida State 447.8 10
26 Marcus Williams Arizona 445.8 33
27 Acie Law Texas A&M 445.2 15
28 Aaron Gray Pittsburgh 440.5 38
29 Zabian Dowdell Virginia Tech 438.2 34
30 Spencer Hawes Washington 433.9 12

The big number is the result of his calculations: the final number is where Chad Ford had the player rated for the draft. So in Thornton's case, Hollinger had him at 25, and Ford had him at 10 - and the Clippers got him at 14.

The first thing that jumps out at me is that based on his own numbers, this is not a massive 'bust-meter' red neon warning sign. 25 to 14? How about Corey Brewer (24 to 7)? Acie Law( 27 to 11)? Nick Young (not in the top 30, to 16)? And going the other way, he's got some questionable guys in his top 20: Nick Fazekas (7), Josh McRoberts (8), Kyle Visser (15) and Herbert Hill (16)? REALLY? At least with Fazekas, McRoberts and Hill, he has a chance to be proven right (although Hill and Fazekas look like possible training camp cuts). Visser went undrafted, and uninvited to camps.

My point being that his numbers overall are WAY out of step with conventional wisdom - maybe he's right and everybody else is wrong, but probably not, right? And then, his own numbers have Thornton in the first round. He usually trusts his numbers (he's a numbers guy). But his negative reaction to Thornton seems to be coming from the gut, at least it does to me.

Consider this: Thornton is ranked 25 by Hollinger's numbers. Toss out the guys that no one in their right mind would take at 14, despite the fact that they are rated ahead of Thornton on Hollinger's list. Fazekas, McRoberts, Visser, Hill, Strawberry, Tucker, Cook, Dudley, Davis - imagine what ClipsNation would be saying if the Clippers had taken one of those guys at 14! There are others on his list that are dubious, but those 9 jump out. They were marginal first rounders at best, no where near the lottery, to every other analyst in the country. So Thornton is 25 on the list, there are at least 9 dubious names in front of Thornton, the Clippers took him at 14. I'm saying, Hollinger's own numbers don't tell you Al is a bust.

He's going with his gut on this one.

by Steve Perrin on Oct 17, 2007 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions

Yes

He's going with his gut, and our point is that he's turning his own logic on itself in order to condemn the Clips.

It's not just that his statistical analysis raised questions about Thornton. In the original post CS points out that his basic analysis contradicts itself. And my point is that he's basing his overall condemnation on poor draft efforts, but I tried to show how when you look at the Clips' draft record AND their current needs Thornton is an overwhelmingly obvious pick, a no brainer. But "going with his gut"/"bustmeter," Hollinger twists around and takes a shot at Thornton, just because it's the Clippers.

All that being said, we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves on Thornton. The Clips only need him to be a solid, productive pick. He doesn't have to be a star or rookie of the year. And his age and maturity is a crucial part of the benefit: with Brand's injury he needs to be make a contribution right away, but it doesn't have to be a huge contribution. He just needs to fall into step with the "grizzled veterans," guys like Mobley, Patterson, and Thomas who average 10-15 pts a game if they get the minutes, and he can be at the bottom or below that scale and still be the right guy.

A good preseason and looking comfortable out on the floor is great, but let's not forget that the Clips have Maggette, Patterson, and Thomas who are all kind of the same guy playing the same positions. Put it this way: I'd rather have all of those guys (along with Powell and Davis) and Brand coming back as I try to scrape together my 20 wins, than having a healthy Brand but no Maggette, no Patterson or Powell, and Thomas or Ross starting at SF. In that case I would be looking at Thornton very seriously as a potential starter and I would need a lot more out of him a lot sooner. In the current situation the Clips can see what happens, hope for the best, and they'll have some options as things evolve.

by zhivclip on Oct 17, 2007 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions

No No No

Note - This is a comment from Jax, not ClipperSteve. Because Jax's comment contained the full text of subscription content, I decided to delete the comment for propriety's sake. I'm not mad... just cautious. For what it's worth, I think this is a fascinating debate, and am working on a new post summarizing both sides of this debate (hopefully I can capture Jax's reasonably accurately). Anyway, here's the portion of Jax's comment without the article:

Hollinger's not going on his "gut" with respect to Thornton. That's not what he does. Frankly, I'm surprised that you guys are making that assumption without reading his article (and particularly surprised that Zhiv would call him "lazy"). As you can see (below), Hollinger is factoring in a large number of variables. I can list them here but they are all there in black and white below. Like them or not.

Out of most drafts, as reflected in the article, based on Hollinger's statistical analysis only about 8 or less actually become solid NBA standouts. Thus, if he ranks someone at 25, what he's saying is that there is a far less chance of that person becoming a solid NBA starter than someone ranked at 8 (or 14 for that matter), based solely on his statistical analysis.

Hollinger is not taking into account individual situations and he doesn't pretend to. These are just statistics, which should play a part in anyone's analysis of any player, but should not be the sole determining factor. However, they seem to work in many cases seeing how they played out for past drafts as noted in the article. He's not saying that Thornton WILL be a bust, but rather based on his statistical analysis that it's more likely than not. I personally happen to like him, but I personally would have picked Stuckey because he's also thought very highly of and because the Clippers could use him more than Thornton IMO.

By the way, the age argument (which Hollinger bases on statistics) makes sense to me on a common sense level because in most cases the best collegiate players, those who become good NBA starters, come out very early. I think that there may be some players, hopefully like Thornton, who develop while in college, but for the most part the die is cast at an earlier age. Once again, Hollinger is not individually analyzing players and doesn't claim to.

by Steve Perrin on Oct 17, 2007 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions

Sorry, Steve - I wasn't aware of that rule

by Jax on Oct 17, 2007 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Nice Read

Guys like Hollinger are great when your trying to pick your players for a fantasy league. Using prior year stats to try to predict future results is logically sound. However, nobody can truely predict how an NBA player is going to perform, especially a college player who is coming into the NBA for the first time.

Every year we have "can't miss" prospects who miss and other guys who were off the radar who turn into solid NBA players. Every player that makes it into the league has skills but much hinges on the effort that they put into improving their skill to fit the NBA game. I think it's been documented that Thornton has a tremendous work ethic. Putting his experience (4 years of college), body make-up (he's a man), skills, and work ethic together likely gives him a great chance to be a very successful NBA player.

by benoit benjamin on Oct 16, 2007 6:03 PM PDT reply actions

remember

when they picked korolev the thought was that no rookie they drafted was going to break into the rotation right away. the clips were that deep. now they need immediate help. i'm glad to see thornton tearing it up in preseason. it doesn't mean "roy" but it's a good start. i think i was dubious based on past clipper picks. how could the clipper front office know something that other teams didn't? they are usually a reverse barometer. could this be the year the clippers get the steal of the draft? i hope so. but they are still lacking at pf, c, sg when you compare them to the rest of the west.

by cabezadeknuckle on Oct 16, 2007 10:07 PM PDT reply actions

some were no brainers, some were dead on

he was right about Josh Howard and Deng, but whiffed on Drew Gooden and Mike Sweetney. Oh, and how about Luke Jackson.

I am confident that Thornton is going to be another one that Hollinger whiffs on. Scouting college guys is not his forte.

by mp on Oct 17, 2007 11:37 AM PDT reply actions

Laziness

I like Hollinger. As sportswriters and analysts go, I don't think he's lazy. He worked hard to develop a system and it's very effective and revealing and now he works it and does a good job.

I think there's a certain laziness built into just about every job, including for instance playing in the NBA. It's hard to stay focused and passionate. I happen to be very lazy myself, and would readily admit to laziness with regards to my job while I hang out at Clipsnation and analyze and discuss the Clippers. And I think sportswriters and analysts, since they do what we do around here for a living, are probably fairly lazy in general. Hollinger is much better than most, and he puts a lot of effort into his preseason analysis and his study of the NBA.

Okay, so he's not especially lazy and works pretty hard on the NBA. All that is good. But it still doesn't address "the Clipper factor." When it comes to preseason analysis and sports journalism, there's a certain heat-seeking element which is fairly obvious. Just look at how the LATimes covers the Lakers versus how it covers the Clippers. The Lakers are just more interesting to them (and most of their audience), and they're going to get into more detail and cover a lot more contingencies than they do with the Clippers. That's where the Clipper factor creates a certain institutional laziness. People just aren't that interested. People have pretty limited and even dismal expectations. Somehow it eventually turns into negative spin. And the truth is that the Clippers generally play down to it, and so it continues.

A good example was KLAC's Steve Hartman's prediction for the Clippers last year. He didn't consider the growth of Kaman and Livingston, that Rebraca might be healthy, and he didn't think about Maggette coming back for a full season after injury, or Brand coming off an MVP-quality year. His theory was that whenever the Clips have a good year (by their standards), and make the playoffs or come close, the next year they take a step backwards. And that's what happened. It's a lazy effort, but that doesn't mean he wasn't right.

I was struck by the preseason analysis of some of the other bloggers that CS linked to. In Sacramento, for instance, they really don't have much of a team, and the analyst, a fan, really didn't have a lot to say about them. Even their own blogger can't really muster much interest in a team headed downhill. But teams like San Antonio, Chicago, Dallas, Phoenix, Miami, Cleveland, and Boston are going to get a lot of attention because they're competitive and interesting. Laker analysis is propped up by the usual Kobe melodrama, and "the Laker factor" (opposite of the Clipper factor because of a championship legacy) will have people working hard to figure out how the Lakers are going to be a playoff team led by Lamar Odom, Josh Howard, and Jason Terry.

And let's remember how lowly the Clippers were thought of at the beginning of 05. No one saw Brand elevating his game. Bobby Simmons and Jaric were gone. Hollinger and others thought that getting Cassell and Mobley, two seeming malcontents, was going to be a disaster on a team that already seemed to have problems sharing the ball. Hollinger went through his stats and analyzed Brand, Maggette, Kaman and Cassell and Mobley, and he didn't give an optimistic view of their chances, or even a middling one. In the end he went went with his gut and thought that the Clips were headed for disaster.

And I think that's what he's done this year. He's taking the worst case scenario for Brand and Livingston's return. He's raising problems between Dunleavy and Maggette, despite evidence to the contrary at the end of last season, and the fact that MD has become highly dependent on Maggette with Brand's injury (and MD has been dependent on Maggette before, after Kittles' injury). Then you get into the Thornton line.

So maybe it shouldn't be called laziness, but I think that Hollinger has fallen prey to the Clipper factor, that he's assuming the worst for the Clips because that's always a pretty safe bet. As a fan and careful student of the team and its dynamics and personnel, the Clipper factor doesn't apply to me (and others), and I can criticize Hollinger and be intrigued by the fact that the league and most of its analysts and fans won't have any real idea who the Clips are and what they can do, and will assume they'll be horrible and pathetic because EB is hurt.

by zhivclip on Oct 17, 2007 1:17 PM PDT reply actions

consider the source

in journalism school they tell you to look for the story that no one else is writing about and i think it's interesting that guys who are new to the la times or espn start writing about the clippers because it's the beat that no one is covering. hollinger started blogging as a boston celtics fan. he doesn't look at the clippers as closely as anyone on this site. it doesn't pay him to do more than the minimum. none of his readers or no one at espn is going to say hey looks like you're working from the cliff notes on your clipper analysis. and yes normally being old and not going into the nba is a bad thing because players don't just declare in a vacuum. they get info from nba personnel to guage the level of interest. it's not just hollinger who wasn't that high on him. don't you think that if thornton was a top 5 pick last year he wouldn't have come out then. of course but someone must have told him to stay in school and work on his game. i'm hoping he will be the clipper version of josh howard another 4 year guy who did everything the right way but was passed over by gms looking for the next ginobili. anyway, don't take it personal cs it's strictly business.

by cabezadeknuckle on Oct 17, 2007 6:40 PM PDT reply actions