Fast Break: A Problem with Hollinger's Performance Efficiency Ratings

Overall, I really and truly respect John Hollinger's content at ESPN. But since I am someone who is an expert at noticing flaws and problems, I thought I would reveal a shortcoming with one of Mr. Hollinger's statistical crown jewels.

Even though I can't find the large amount of time to figure out every detail of the hard to understand Hollinger Performance Efficiency Ratings formulas, I am already aware that his standardization around the number 15 is not a good thing, because there is no true, good reason for making all the players average out to 15. Hollinger does this because he is fond of how that technique on the surface allows complete comparability from one year to the next. But what if all League players on the average are better one year than the other year? You would never know it from the Hollinger rating system. Also, a player could be better one year than the other, but show up as worse in the year he was better, according to the Hollinger system, due to the standardization of all ratings around 15.0. This would happen if the League of players as a whole had higher ratings in the year in which that player's rating went up, and if the League average rating went up by more than that player's rating.

The point is, if the number of points or whatever else goes up League-wide, why should every individual player have the measurement of his points or whatever else scaled back? No, Hollinger is wrong about this. A player who does more in season B than in season A should automatically get a higher rating, regardless of whether the League as a whole had more overall production. Year to year comparisons are more valid if the rating is not standardized around a particular number, not less valid as Hollinger wrongly claims. The standardization is a needless academic type of thing.

Without a doubt the standardization around the number 15 is not needed, unless you are just an academic trying to show off your mathematical skills. There is no basketball reason for the standardization. There is no such thing as an average player in the Hollinger sense, because the League and the players in it do change from year to year and from decade to decade. Why should you pretend that the players of 1975 or whatever were, overall, exactly as good as the players of 2008? That's what Hollinger is claiming, but it's not true.

Also, you can not fairly compare a player from one year to the next using the Hollinger system, but you can do it with the Real Player Ratings here at Quest For the Ring.
____________________________________________
Editorial Notes: A "Fast Break" is a short and quick preview of some of the topics that will be explored and proved in more detail in upcoming regular reports. Fast Breaks will often reappear in full reports with only minor reediting, but there will be more important details, more evidence, and more implications and explanations in the full reports. Moreover, there will be topics that never appear in any Fast Break in a full Report.

Fast Breaks are especially useful for the first few days after major news breaks. They are also very useful for people who will seldom or never have enough time to read a full Game/Team/League Report. Fast Breaks are the type of article that more typical web logs feature almost all or all of the time.