John Hollinger's Lakers "Forecasts" 2007-08 and 2008-09

by Gils_Keloids on Dec 22, 2009 3:12 PM PST Comment 33 comments

Taking trips down memory lane is fun, especially with the internet. In the past, you could make predictions, and no one would ever call you on it. Nowadays, you can look it up and see what silly things people had to say. Hindsight is more than 20/20.

2007-08 Prediction: 43-39, 2nd in Pacific, 7th in Western Conference

Hollinger sez: "...this makes the Lakers one of the easiest teams to forecast. They can't possibly be under .500 with Kobe on the team, but they can't possibly win more than 50 games with the crew around him and the wacky front office. So look for things to turn out like they did last season, with the Lakers bowing out meekly in the first round of the playoffs. And when it ends, expect Kobe to turn up the volume on his trade chatter considerably."

What really happened: 57-25, 1st in Pacific Division, 1st in Western Conference

Well, that "wacky front office" turned out to be the only sane ones in the thunderstorm. Mitch Kupchak held tight through Kobe's demands, and weaseled Pau Gasol from the Grizz for Kwame Brown and Pau's brother. We're now seeing that Marc Gasol can actually play, so Chris Wallace at least got a quarter for his dollar. Speaking of Mitch, how often do we hear the owner say that he has complete trust in his GM, only to have the GM fired at the end of the season? Jerry Buss showed his integrity as an owner. The Lakers went on to the Finals and lost to the Celtics, who bullied the Lakers to win in six. Kobe muted his trade chatter completely.

2008-09 Prediction: 57-25, 1st in Pacific Division, 2nd in Western Conference

Hollinger sez: "Kobe. It's become passe to say he's the best player in the league; certainly he's been on the short list for the past half-decade. He's also 30 and has more mileage on his legs than any other 30-year-old in history, which might not be a concern except that his numbers have dropped fairly sharply each of the past two seasons. The fact that he's trying to play out the entire season with a wounded finger makes me think this isn't the year he breaks the streak. My projection system has his PER at 23.83 -- that's without putting my thumb on the scale for the factors mentioned above -- and while that's still awesome, it also would continue the downward trend (28.11, 26.13, 24.31) since age 27... All that gives the Lakers a better best-case scenario than anyone in the league. But they have to answer a lot of question marks in order to pull that off. And when I look at what's probable, rather than merely what's possible, L.A. comes out second in an airtight three-way race for the West's top record."

What really happened: 65-17, 1st in Pacific Division, 1st in Western Conference

What, did Hollinger just copy last year's record and make it this year's prediction? How unimaginative. Reports of Kobe's decline turned out to be greatly exaggerated. No, the Lakers didn't finish second in the West, but they did finish second to the Cavs for the best record. Fortunately, the Cavs lost to the Magic, and the Lakers got homecourt for the Finals, and the ring was theirs.

2009-10 Prediction: 65-17, first in Pacific Division, first in Western Conference

Hollinger sez:"For a second year in a row, the Lakers also may benefit from their Finals opponent. Last season they got a break with a Jameer Nelson being hampered for Orlando, after he was one of many quick point guards who riddled the Lakers' defense in the regular season. This time around they may benefit again -- Nelson is back, but I'm projecting Cleveland to meet L.A. in the Finals. With Artest in tow, the Lakers couldn't possibly match up better against the Cavs, which means Phil Jackson may be able to break out his "XI" hat next June."

...

I'm sensing a trend here. 65-17 last year, this year's prediction 65-17. Can the Lakers beat the forecast for a third straight year? Is it a bad sign that Hollinger's machine finally predicts a title for the Lakers? Stay tuned ... same bat time, same bat channel!

And no, I don't think I could do any better. Then again, I don't put out "forecasts" and predictions. At least ones that are this specific.

0 recs | Comment 33 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

hollingers stat are stupid… his team rankings are even stupider

by matthewmafa on Dec 22, 2009 3:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

yawn. I saw the pattern and I have no comment

Shaquille O'Neal: "Tell him Shaq doesn’t respond to juvenile delinquents without a college degree. Tell him to get his degree, and we can talk. In the meantime, he should call me Dr. Shaq because I’m working on my PhD." (Referring to 17-year-old rookie Andrew Bynum, who compared himself to Shaq…except that he can make free throws.)
(courtesy of www.shaqquotes.com)

by KobeisGod on Dec 22, 2009 4:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

my favorite is how he just copies and pastes the season before's record and applies it to the current year

that’s some amazing forecasting abilities right there.

also, regarding to the 2008-2009 forecast, he placed the Lakers as the 2nd in the WC … so who was first? Hornets?

Lakers 2009 Road to Redemption: TREVOR, DEREK, LAMAR, PAU & KOBE.
Play the game of which Lakers reminds you of: TA - TI, Shannon Brown - Chris Brown, Pau Gasol - Jesus, Machine - Luis Scola/Russell Brand, PJ with mustache and beard - Colonel Sanders.

by PeanutButterSpread on Dec 22, 2009 4:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

This is the same guy

who predicted a jazz vs celtics finals in 2008 and the cavs beating the lakers in seven games last year…nuff said

"Just by the aura of D.J. Mbenga being there, the shot missed."

by shaqfor3 on Dec 22, 2009 6:14 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

So tell me again who invented the PER system

"Michael Jordan once said the quality Bryant possessed that reminded him most of himself was the desire to distance himself from contemporaries."

by PURPLE AND GOLD FOR LIFE on Dec 22, 2009 6:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

To be fair

No one predicted in ‘07-’08 that 1) Bynum would have a breakout season 2) the Lakers would steal Gasol from Memphis 3) the bench would all simultaneously have a career year. You can’t really fault anyone for that kind of prediction — it’s like saying OKC is going to win 50+ games because they pulled a trade for Chris Bosh out of the air and Westbrook and Green developed into borderline All-Star players. If we had nothing more than the roster we had to start the year with and Bynum doesn’t have a breakout year, then the prediction is fairly accurate.

As for ‘08-’09, all of the predictions were hugely thrown off by 1) Utah and Houston both suffering injuries to key players (Williams, Boozer, McGrady) 2) Denver having nearly everything break right for them (i.e. the Billups trade) to get to the second seed. Utah had just come off a ‘07-’08 campaign in which they were first in offensive efficiency, and there was nothing to indicate that they were going to fall short of that. Houston finally looked healthy for the first time in a long while, added Artest to create an incredible set of wing defenders, and looked positively stacked at every position. Downgrade both Utah and Houston and you create a second tier in the West looking at the Lakers instead of sharing a tier with them.

To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

by Ben R on Dec 22, 2009 6:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

No one predicted in ‘07-’08 that 1) Bynum would have a breakout season 2) the Lakers would steal Gasol from Memphis 3) the bench would all simultaneously have a career year. You can’t really fault anyone for that kind of prediction — it’s like saying OKC is going to win 50+ games because they pulled a trade for Chris Bosh out of the air and Westbrook and Green developed into borderline All-Star players. If we had nothing more than the roster we had to start the year with and Bynum doesn’t have a breakout year, then the prediction is fairly accurate.

Derek Fisher alone and a more mature team was pretty good indication alone that the Lakers would be better than they were the year before…

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

by Justin N. on Dec 22, 2009 7:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No one thought the Lakers were going to be good that year. There was so much drama coming out of LA that it would have been impossible to imagine the way things actually worked out that year. If someone had told me what would happen in 2007-2008 in August 2007 I would have thought they were full of crap.

by grimmz on Dec 23, 2009 2:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

hey I totally agree

BUT.

I thought the Lakers would be BETTER than they were last year. Did I think they’d make the finals? No. I did, however, believe they’d be more than a first-round playoff exit. Fisher’s impact on the team was UNDENIABLE and evident from the get-go. Recall how Kobe’s training camp statements rang true on many of the younger players:

“I’m Kobe Bryant and I’m here to win a championship”

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

by Justin N. on Dec 23, 2009 4:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You have more faith than I do ;) I was so heart broken by Kobe’s trade demands and the ensuing drama that I had trouble following until around late December of 2007. That was a magical season, even if they did fall short.

by grimmz on Dec 23, 2009 6:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It isn’t fair to compare Hollinger’s prediction in 2007 because of the Gasol trade. That changed everything. And I realize that being a Laker fan and also knowing the outcome of the 2008-09 season is going to raise suspicion, but there was no way even a healthy Rockets team or a healthy Jazz team was going to beat the Lakers. If anything, that Rockets team pulled together as a team like nobody’s business because of Yao’s injury and took a nonchalant Lakers team to 7 games because nobody was prepared for Brooks taking all the shots and Landry playing so surprisingly well. T-Mac and Yao would have undoubtedly taken shots and looks away from those two. Also, what was Utah’s road record that year and who had home court advantage? Picking the Jazz to top the Western Conference and have homecourt advantage throughout was pretty bold too, especially since the Lakers, Suns, Hornets, Rockets, and the Spurs finished better the year before. Also, how many full seasons has chronic-back-microfracture-knee McGrady played on the Rockets? Yao? If anything, that year was a fluke for Houston because it was the first time since 2005 that Yao came close to playing the full season (actually, T-Mac was pretty healthy then too, and they both carried that 2005 team to a first round loss to the Mavs, who lost to the Suns, who ended up losing to the Spurs. They were good that year, but hardly contenders).

by brianfbb on Dec 24, 2009 4:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What confuses me about the Pau trade

Is that if Memphis traded Pau, according to them, to free up salary then why did they decided to take on Zach Randolph’s contract? I will never get that.

I think the trade was one sided in terms of talent but in terms of who got what they wanted it’s even in that sense. Talent is one thing but there is also the business side of it which is something that we as fans over look. That is why so many people look at the trade and think in terms of the level of talent that switched hands. But in a business sense the Grizzlies got exactly what they were looking for. But seeing Marc play now I wish the Lakers did have him but not if it meant that the Lakers wouldn’t have Gasol.

"Michael Jordan once said the quality Bryant possessed that reminded him most of himself was the desire to distance himself from contemporaries."

by PURPLE AND GOLD FOR LIFE on Dec 24, 2009 5:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

From a business perspective

If I’m going to pay more for my Lakers tickets than what any other fan pays to see their team, I would like to see management make smart decisions with that money. The Lakers organization took their expensive seats and turned it into the most valuable franchise in the league, and I credit the front office for spending a completely worthwhile 13 million on Gasol, spending millions over the tax, and turning the Lakers into contenders again for the next several years. The Grizzlies ended up saving that money, only to end up taking on an even bigger contract for an even worse player. So I won’t fully understand that either.

As for getting exactly what they wanted, yeah I bet Chris Wallace got exactly what he wanted in Kwame’s expiring contract at the time. But it’s not like he couldn’t have waited another year or two (it’s not like the Grizzlies have done anything since, except for signing Randolph and AI). If he’d have waited, he might have pulled off an even better deal.

by brianfbb on Dec 25, 2009 12:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

STOP SAYING THAT!!!

can you really say we stole Pau? if we waited for Marc, we wouldn’t have the ring, but we’d have a nastier, stronger version of the Gasol DNA at a cheaper price for many more years than Pau could give us. talk about bang for the buck. It was even steven or they got the better deal. I was wishing for Pau when he was 19 to be in LA so it matters not. we got a ‘right now’ shot for the ring, they got a ‘franchise player’.

Lakers, Hurricanes, Dolphins
Imagine my sports world in the 80's. They're almost back, 'ceptin the Dolphins

by LAKESHOWrydamee on Dec 24, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Uh, Marc is good

But he’s not Pau. The notion that the Memphis trade wasn’t lopsided in the Lakers’ favor is positively ludicrous. We got the second (or third or fourth, depending on whether you consider Duncan a four and how you rank Bosh) best power forward in the league and gave away a big expiring contract (Kwame) who was an awful player, a poorly performing rookie (Crittenton), and the rights to a foreign big man whose ceiling didn’t seem all that high at the time (M. Gasol).

To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

by Ben R on Dec 24, 2009 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

“The notion that the Memphis trade wasn’t lopsided in the Lakers’ favor is positively ludicrous.”

I couldn’t disagree more. I think paying $10 million for a Picasso is ludicrous, but if that is what someone is willing to pay then to them it is a good deal.

Just because the Lakers goal in the trade was to immediately become a contender and Memphis goal was to save money and pick up younger cheaper players doesn’t make the trade ludicrous. The truth is that Memphis wanted to get rid of Pau’s salary, and pick up good young players in return. In short they got exactly what they wanted just like the guy paying $10 million for a Picasso. I am sure the guy selling the Picasso thinks he got away with murder, but that is how the free market works. I am sure that the Minnesota Vikings thought they got a steal when they got Herschel Walker for draft picks, but I think in the long run the Cowboys did OK.

The fact that other teams that are championship contenders don’t like it doesn’t make it a lopsided trade, it just makes it bad for them.

Billy Mac: "Lamar, can you see yourself actually getting in the (boxing) ring"?
Lamar Odom: "No. My face is too pretty."

by pslakerfan on Dec 24, 2009 4:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Except you don't trade for pennies on the dollar

There was a lot more available on the market in terms of long-term assets and young prospects. Crittenton and (a then-not well regarded) Marc Gasol wasnot good value for a player of Pau’s caliber. That Marc happened to be a legitimate NBA player was luck more than anything; the rights to Sun Yue were discussed as well and he easily could have replaced Gasol on that trade. At that point, we wouldn’t even be talking about how lopsided it was because it would have been epically bad. That Memphis took Thabeet in the draft indicates as well as anything that they really don’t value Marc as a significant asset. Cap space by itself was not worth the trade because 1) Memphis is a horrid free agent destination, so that’s out 2) facilitating trades by being under the cap doesn’t net you overly significant assets 3) no sane team will trade you a key/star/franchise player in a Camby-esque dump. Pau would have gotten them at the very least a key cornerstone going forward, and while they lucked into Marc, that doesn’t make the trade any better.

To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

by Ben R on Dec 25, 2009 1:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not about how you value what they got, it's about how they value what they got.

To say the trade was lopsided because Pau > Marc + Crittenton is missing the point. Of course they didn’t get equal value in terms of players, that was the point. What they got was cap space and young players to try and re-build with.

The fact that they made bad financial decisions with that money down the road also isn’t relevant to the trade, it just shows how dumb they are with their money. Memphis is 7-3 in their last 10 games and are almost back to .500 ball. They are slowly rebuilding and essentially getting exactly what they wanted. Pau wasn’t going to lead that team to a championship without expensive help which they weren’t willing to do anyway. Trading him was the only answer. To trade him for an equal player with a long term contract wouldn’t solve their problem at all. To trade him for an equal player with a short term contract would only help for that season (obviously not an important goal) and they would be in the same position at the end of the year anyway with a big expiring contract. In other words “Kwame” was irrelevant. Either way they would still end up with exactly the same thing after the season was over, no Pau and extra money.

Billy Mac: "Lamar, can you see yourself actually getting in the (boxing) ring"?
Lamar Odom: "No. My face is too pretty."

by pslakerfan on Dec 25, 2009 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You miss the point completely

I’m not disputing that they needed to get his contract off the books. The entire point was that they needed to get some long-term value in the trade in terms of a solid young player in addition to the cap relief. Yes, no trade on the market equaled Pau’s value, but that’s not what I’m not arguing. The problem is that Crittenton, Kwame, and Marc were essentially all considered negligible assets and essentially, the only thing Memphis got was cap space. They didn’t look for any young players or prospects that were available on the market at the time that a player of Pau’s caliber would have fetched in addition to cap space. Memphis essentially frittered away Pau’s value on the trade market, which was a poor way to use it.

To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

by Ben R on Dec 25, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

“The entire point was that they needed to get some long-term value in the trade in terms of a solid young player in addition to the cap relief.”

?? You don’t think Marc Gasol and Javaris Crittenton qualify as some solid young players? Marc Gasol was the player of the year in European League and Crittenton was our first round draft pick who most Laker fans wanted to keep instead of Farmar. How is that not some solid young players?

You act like every team in the league was going to give up a $9million expiring contract, a top draft pick, and their best young player for Pau. No one else had what the Lakers had to offer. Do you really think Memphis had a much better offer sitting around and just decided “screw it, let’s help the Lakers out and shaft ourselves in the process”?

You need to look at this from the standpoint of a GM of a bad team that doesn’t want to spend money. Not every team has an owner like Jerry Buss.

Billy Mac: "Lamar, can you see yourself actually getting in the (boxing) ring"?
Lamar Odom: "No. My face is too pretty."

by pslakerfan on Dec 26, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

?? You don’t think Marc Gasol and Javaris Crittenton qualify as some solid young players? Marc Gasol was the player of the year in European League and Crittenton was our first round draft pick who most Laker fans wanted to keep instead of Farmar. How is that not some solid young players?

‘some solid young players’ << what Pau Gasol meant for us from 2007-2010. That’s pretty much the end of the story— Pau single handedly changed the outlook of Kobe, Laker fans, and Kupchak’s job, and brought Los Angeles a championship. If you ask every other GM, they would have done that in a heartbeat. Marc and Crittenton haven’t even helped Memphis to a playoff berth.

You act like every team in the league was going to give up a $9million expiring contract, a top draft pick, and their best young player for Pau. No one else had what the Lakers had to offer. Do you really think Memphis had a much better offer sitting around and just decided "screw it, let’s help the Lakers out and shaft ourselves in the process"?

Memphis traded Pau way too soon, they could have probably gotten a better deal had they waited. Instead, that genius Chris Wallace panicked, figured “we need to start rebuilding ASAP” and took on Vin Baker’s contra- (oh wait, that’s Boston) traded Pau away for nickels and immediately acquired Zach Randolph.

by brianfbb on Dec 27, 2009 4:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

“If you ask every other GM, they would have done that in a heartbeat.”

So why didn’t they? Where are these other “better” deals? I haven’t seen one yet. Everyone says “they could have gotten so much more”. Where?

Like I said above (apparently in invisible ink) “Who else had that much cap space, draft picks, and good young talent (which Gasol and Crittenton are, regardless of whether or not Memphis has won)”.

Billy Mac: "Lamar, can you see yourself actually getting in the (boxing) ring"?
Lamar Odom: "No. My face is too pretty."

by pslakerfan on Dec 27, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You misunderstood.

I meant that the deal was a no-brainer for Kupchak.

by brianfbb on Dec 27, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well not misunderstood....

but I did copy the wrong quote….

“Memphis traded Pau way too soon, they could have probably gotten a better deal had they waited.”

That is what I meant to be responding to. Sorry.

Billy Mac: "Lamar, can you see yourself actually getting in the (boxing) ring"?
Lamar Odom: "No. My face is too pretty."

by pslakerfan on Dec 27, 2009 8:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Because Chris Wallace doesn’t know what he’s doing. It’s as simple of an answer as that. Wallace my know more basketball than 99% of the fans who criticize him, but to paraphrase deadspin, a General Manager has to ‘fucking MANAGE people.’ My guess is that the owner told him ‘we aren’t going anywhere with Pau, we need money’ and Wallace panicked. And when the owner told him ‘lets not have our team lose our first 18 games and make history in all the wrong ways,’ he panicked again.

Hypotheticals are easy for the casual fan. But when your job in on the line, you better be able to handle all the criticisms and all the repercussions that come with your decisions. And since Wallace wasn’t able to do that, the Lakers got Pau and a championship, while Memphis is still struggling with an identity.

by brianfbb on Dec 29, 2009 3:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

'may know more basketball'***

by brianfbb on Dec 29, 2009 3:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Marc Being a Legit NBA center was luck??????

are you freaking kidding me???? those guys were brought up playing euro ball, which lets you turn pro at like 14. ThaBeet will NEVER be as good as Marc. Its called the learning curve and since Marc has played the majority of his life, the curve is not as steep. Thabeet just started playing like 3 years ago. Siblings make each other better in sports, you must learn the hard way to win. I’m sure Marc got a couple of wins against Pau in the backyard growing up. The fire starts early with competition, everyone that has a brother that plays the same sport knows this. why don’t you?

Lakers, Hurricanes, Dolphins
Imagine my sports world in the 80's. They're almost back, 'ceptin the Dolphins

by LAKESHOWrydamee on Dec 26, 2009 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What’s also ludicrous is that you mention the only differences between the two brothers is that Marc is nastier, stronger, and cheaper. Pau has been PERFECT for the Lakers, I’m certain that Marc (as good as he is/will be) would never have taken the Lakers from pretenders to contenders to champions. Best case scenario for him in LA would have been a good sub in for Bynum.

by brianfbb on Dec 24, 2009 3:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs