Open Letter to John Hollinger
For three years now, ESPN's Math Man John Hollinger has floated his regression analysis of college players and claimed that it was a better predictor of success than the current scouting system. He cites his formula's success since 2002... even though he didn't unveil the plan since 2007 (and continually updates it to make up for his past mistakes). It's a brilliant scam; he uses sleepers and surprise success stories to help figure out how to create and perfect his formula and then he comes out and claims that his formula predicted the said sleepers.
Unfortunately, the system hasn't actually worked in the two years since he's unveiled it. Last year's draft was an utter disaster and 2007 had as many mistakes as it did improvements.
This year's article was especially full of itself so I felt the need to write Hollinger a little note.
Dear John,
We are now in year three of your Draft Rater system. I believe that the Draft Rater could be a useful reference point but the way that you overhype it does the formula (and your own reputation) a disservice. It's especially surprising that after the system's 2008 performance, this year's articles come off as more self-congratulatory, misleading, and disingenuous than ever.
The first issue is one of language. When you write about past drafts, you describe the Draft Rater's performance in the past tense, as if the current system was actually in place at those times. For instance, you wrote "Additionally, the Draft Rater has come up with some big draft steals" or "2002 was a strong season for the Draft Rater, as it correctly recommended avoiding four players (Wagner, Ely, Haislip and Jones) selected among the top 10 collegians and made only one bad recommendation (Logan) in their stead."
Obviously, these types of comments are misleading because the Draft Rater wasn't introduced until 2007. The system didn't actually "come up" with anything nor had it "correctly recommended" anyone. In fact, the complete opposite is true and that's what makes your article so disappointing. Were these steals and busts discovered by your Draft Rater or were they actually the very information that you used to formulate your system? You claim that The Draft Rater predicted Carlos Boozer but it would seem that the truth is that Carlos Boozer helped create the Draft Rater.
This is the key problem that you fail to address in any of your articles. While the Draft Rater is great when it has the benefit of hindsight, it doesn't fare so well in the actual moment.
If someone in 2007 had consulted the draft rater, they would have gotten a top 10 (in order) of: Kevin Durant, Greg Oden, Mike Conley Jr., Thaddeus Young, Brandan Wright, Al Horford, Nick Fazekas, Josh McRoberts, Rodney Stuckey, and Jared Dudley. While I'm sure someone might have thanked you for Stuckey over Law and Young over Brewer, you'd have some serious explaining to do for Fazekas and McRoberts. The Rater successfully pegged Big Baby Davis as a steal but, then again, it had him ahead of Jeff Green, who was about even with Kyle Visser and Herbert Hill.
The only other example we have of the Draft Rater in action was last year and even you had to acknowledge what a mess that was. However, blaming the one-and-dones doesn't really help since it's not like the system did a bang up job with the other collegians. Darrell Arthur and Mareese Speights over Brook Lopez. Darnell Jackson and Richard Hendrix over Jason Thompson. Ryan Anderson was considered almost undraftworthy. And that's just the big men. Jamont Gordon was your sleeper (better than Westbrook said the numbers) and Courtney Lee was a "fringe second rounder". Probably the biggest sleeper of the draft, the undrafted Anthony Morrow, didn't get any help from the Draft Rater either; he wasn't mentioned at all in your article.
This isn't the only sin of omission that your article commits though. You constantly highlight the benefits and ignore the mistakes of the system. You commend your current system for passing over Patrick O'Bryant, Randy Foye, and JJ Redick but they were replaced with Shawne Williams, Hilton Armstrong, and Ronnie Brewer. Even if you cop a plea for Williams' attitude, that's still not impressive, especially since your current system is working with three years of hindsight and actual knowledge of how these guys performed.
Also, you commend your system for avoiding the likes of Patrick O'Bryant but it took you two years to get the system to be able to do that. He was #6 in 2007 and last year, the Draft Rater still had O'Bryant as having the third most potential of any big man in the draft (#2 was Shelden Williams and #4 was LaMarcus Aldridge).
The bottom line is that the system is just as flawed as the current results. For every Rajon Rondo, there's a Marcus Williams. You might spare a team from drafting Marcus Haislip but they'll end up with Casey Jacobsen instead.
I'm not sure if ESPN pushes you to make such bold pronouncements or if you really just have a blind faith in your system that causes you to miss all the problems but the fact of the matter is that the Draft Rater is an interesting reference but it's hardly as helpful as tool as you like to paint it. You're already copping pleas for Ty Lawson (citing work ethic and injury issues) but how could anyone really doubt a player with the fifth highest projection since 2002? The only guys with higher marks were: Durant, Wade, 'Melo... and Mike Conley Jr.
So I guess you can take it for what it's worth and what it's worth isn't as much as you seem to think
Sincerely,
Kevin Mendonca
