PDA

View Full Version : Leave it to Hollinger...


StackAttack
01-18-2007, 06:27 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerranking

Live power rankings. Interesting to say the least.

Flacolaco
01-18-2007, 06:52 PM
So you lose 2 games in a row and you're still #5? and you have the best record and your #2.... and you lose at home last night to the lakers, and you're #3....

hold on, I need a calculator.....

Murphy3
01-18-2007, 06:59 PM
I find it difficult to understand why the Suns are ranked ahead of the Mavs. The only things they have going for them is the longer winning streak and the point differential. Dallas has played a harder schedule, has a slightly better record, has the much better record against the West, and has beaten Phoenix in both of their head to head meetings.

rmacomic
01-18-2007, 07:00 PM
So you lose 2 games in a row and you're still #5? and you have the best record and your #2.... and you lose at home last night to the lakers, and you're #3....

hold on, I need a calculator.....
No sir, I think what you're looking for is a shovel.;)

endrity
01-18-2007, 07:05 PM
As he says in the chat today, his rankings is like the computer component of the BCS, it does not make much sense. I wouldn't put too much thought on it, both the Suns and the Mavs are way above everybody, and the Suns have a tendency to run up the score against lesser teams, they have done so for the last two years. Do I think the Mavs can beat them in the playoffs? Of course, but I do think they need Diop to play like last year. He was instrumental in us winning against them last year. He was specifically signed to counter athletic big men, since the Suns killed us two years aga with Stoudemire.

jthig32
01-18-2007, 07:07 PM
I find it difficult to understand why the Suns are ranked ahead of the Mavs. The only things they have going for them is the longer winning streak and the point differential. Dallas has played a harder schedule, has a slightly better record, has the much better record against the West, and has beaten Phoenix in both of their head to head meetings.

Well, you hit it. Point differential. His calculation weighs point differential as the very most important factor, and it obviously does not weigh head to head matchups at all.

In fact, Hollinger feels that an entire season against other teams is more predictave then four games where the two teams play each other. It's in interesting theory, but it completely ignores the reality of how one team matches up against another.

Murphy3
01-18-2007, 07:17 PM
I understand that. But, the Mavs have a better record, a better record against the top teams, AND have played a more difficult schedule. Those three things alone should automatically put the Mavs ahead of the Suns.

jthig32
01-18-2007, 07:21 PM
I understand that. But, the Mavs have a better record, a better record against the top teams, AND have played a more difficult schedule. Those three things alone should automatically put the Mavs ahead of the Suns.

Again, if you read his explanation, he isn't using records AT ALL. So records literally do NOT matter.

So when you take into account the fact that point differential is his most important category, you can see how his rankings have them higher.

I personally agree with you. It's idiotic for any kind of ranking to have the Suns ahead of the Mavs, but his parameters are what they are, I guess.

mary
01-18-2007, 07:27 PM
The Magic are better than the Lakers?

That seems alot more ridiculous than putting the Suns ahead of the Mavs...but maybe I just have kept up with Orlando...

Dirkadirkastan
01-18-2007, 08:26 PM
The goal is to win an NBA title, not make the top spot of Hollinger's Happy List.

Tokey41
01-18-2007, 08:38 PM
Toronto is 9th... I love when they do well but thats a little much no matter how you justify your ranking system.

WurzburgBorn
01-18-2007, 08:43 PM
One problem is that his system gives teams credit for having won recently. This means that if a team has been facing easy opponents recently, they will be overrated by this sytem; conversely, a team that has had a tough schedule recently will be underrated by the system.

Also, I think offensive and defensive efficiency per 100 possesssions would be better to use than average margin of victory.

Mavs Rule
01-18-2007, 09:13 PM
Explaining our new daily NBA Power RankingsBy John Hollinger
ESPN Insider
Archive

Editor's note: To see the Hollinger Power Rankings, click here.

By now, you might have noticed a new item on ESPN.com's NBA page -- a daily version of our power rankings.

These rankings are based on a formula I devised, and they are updated every day, automatically.

I created these rankings to give a quick assessment of all 30 teams so far in the season, since sometimes the standings can be misleading in this department.


HOLLINGER'S SECRET FORMULA
RATING = (((SOS-0.5)/0.037)*0.67) + (((SOSL10-0.5)/0.037)*0.33) + 100 + (0.67*(MARG+(((ROAD-HOME)*3.5)/(GAMES))) + (0.33*(MARGL10+(((ROAD10-HOME10)*3.5)/(10)))))


SOS = Season Win/Loss percentage of team's opponents, expressed as a decimal (e.g., .500)

SOSL10 = Season Win/Loss percentage of team's last 10 opponents, expressed as a decimal (e.g., .500)

MARG = Team's average scoring margin

MARGL10 = Team's average scoring margin over the last 10 games

HOME = Team's home games

HOMEL10 = Team's home games over the last 10 games

ROAD = Team's road games

ROADL10 = Team's road games over the last 10 games

GAMES = Team's total games



Here is some background to help as you look through the rankings each day.

Scoring margin
One of my goals was to create a system that told us more about a team's quality than the standings do.

So instead of winning percentage, the rankings uses points scored and points allowed, which are actually better indicators of a team's quality than wins and losses.

This might not sound right at first, but studies have shown scoring margin to be a better predictor of future success than a team's win-loss record. Thus, scoring margin is a more accurate sign of a team's quality.

That explains why, for instance, Phoenix is No. 1 right now even though Dallas has a better record -- the Suns have the best scoring margin in basketball.

Conversely, it explains why Miami is No. 24 even though the Heat are close to .500.

Strength of schedule
Yes, this matters in the NBA, too. This effect is not as profound in the pro game as in the college game, because the 30 NBA teams are more evenly matched, but it still affects a team's results.

This comes into play during the season and even at the end of the season. For instance, an Eastern Conference team like Boston (easiest schedule so far) will play a softer schedule this season than a Western Conference team like Houston (toughest schedule so far). In fact, the teams with the nine toughest schedules so far are in the West.

Recent performance
Another key variable in the formula is recent performance, which I included for two reasons.

First, it stands to reason that more recent games are a more valid indicator of how strong a team is currently.

Second, I wanted these rankings to follow the model of Marc Stein's "human" power rankings, on the site each Monday, in which a team's recent play is a huge factor.

To accomplish this, I weigh a team's full-season results by two-thirds, and their most recent games by another one-third, so that the overall ranking gives a greater weight to recent games.

You're probably wondering at this point what I mean by "recent." It varies depending on where we are in the season.

For the first 40 games of the year, it just means a team's past 10 games.

From that point forward, however, it's the most recent 25 percent of their schedule. The net result is that, after the first 40 games, a team's most recent 25 percent of their schedule will account for 40 percent of their ranking.

The weighing of recent performance explains why Toronto is ranked No. 9 even though the Raps are under .500 -- their scoring margin in the past 10 games is a robust +5.0.

Similarly, Golden State has fallen to No. 23 thanks to a -6.1 margin in its last 10 games.

Home and road
The final variable here is home and road games.

In each game, a team's scoring margin is adjusted by the 3.5-point advantage we expect (and by "we," I mean the Vegas books, of course) the home team to have in a game between otherwise equal opponents.

This has a bit of an impact at this point in the year because some teams will have large home-road disparities.

Sacramento, for instance, has played a league-low 15 road games, so the Kings are No. 19 despite solid victory margin and strength of schedule numbers.

And Philadelphia, with a league-low 14 home games, is higher than some might expect at No. 26.

Caveats
Since this is an entirely automated ranking, you'll notice certain "human" factors missing.

For instance, the method doesn't know yet that Shaq is about to come back for Miami, or that the Nuggets have been playing without Carmelo Anthony for 15 games.

Along the same lines, it doesn't take into account injuries, trades, controversial calls or any other variables -- just the scores, please.

Nonetheless, it can be very useful because it allows us to see what the landscape looks like when we remove our usual filters.

We hope you enjoy our new daily power rankings.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, he needs to revise his formula to include head to head during the season.

dirno2000
01-18-2007, 09:18 PM
Here's the formula along with an explanation:

---------------------

By now, you might have noticed a new item on ESPN.com's NBA page -- a daily version of our power rankings.

These rankings are based on a formula I devised, and they are updated every day, automatically.

I created these rankings to give a quick assessment of all 30 teams so far in the season, since sometimes the standings can be misleading in this department.

Here is some background to help as you look through the rankings each day.

Scoring margin
One of my goals was to create a system that told us more about a team's quality than the standings do.

So instead of winning percentage, the rankings uses points scored and points allowed, which are actually better indicators of a team's quality than wins and losses.

This might not sound right at first, but studies have shown scoring margin to be a better predictor of future success than a team's win-loss record. Thus, scoring margin is a more accurate sign of a team's quality.

That explains why, for instance, Phoenix is No. 1 right now even though Dallas has a better record -- the Suns have the best scoring margin in basketball.

Conversely, it explains why Miami is No. 24 even though the Heat are close to .500.

Strength of schedule
Yes, this matters in the NBA, too. This effect is not as profound in the pro game as in the college game, because the 30 NBA teams are more evenly matched, but it still affects a team's results.

This comes into play during the season and even at the end of the season. For instance, an Eastern Conference team like Boston (easiest schedule so far) will play a softer schedule this season than a Western Conference team like Houston (toughest schedule so far). In fact, the teams with the nine toughest schedules so far are in the West.

Recent performance
Another key variable in the formula is recent performance, which I included for two reasons.

First, it stands to reason that more recent games are a more valid indicator of how strong a team is currently.

Second, I wanted these rankings to follow the model of Marc Stein's "human" power rankings, on the site each Monday, in which a team's recent play is a huge factor.

To accomplish this, I weigh a team's full-season results by two-thirds, and their most recent games by another one-third, so that the overall ranking gives a greater weight to recent games.

You're probably wondering at this point what I mean by "recent." It varies depending on where we are in the season.

For the first 40 games of the year, it just means a team's past 10 games.

From that point forward, however, it's the most recent 25 percent of their schedule. The net result is that, after the first 40 games, a team's most recent 25 percent of their schedule will account for 40 percent of their ranking.

The weighing of recent performance explains why Toronto is ranked No. 9 even though the Raps are under .500 -- their scoring margin in the past 10 games is a robust +5.0.

Similarly, Golden State has fallen to No. 23 thanks to a -6.1 margin in its last 10 games.

Home and road
The final variable here is home and road games.

In each game, a team's scoring margin is adjusted by the 3.5-point advantage we expect (and by "we," I mean the Vegas books, of course) the home team to have in a game between otherwise equal opponents.

This has a bit of an impact at this point in the year because some teams will have large home-road disparities.

Sacramento, for instance, has played a league-low 15 road games, so the Kings are No. 19 despite solid victory margin and strength of schedule numbers.

And Philadelphia, with a league-low 14 home games, is higher than some might expect at No. 26.

Caveats
Since this is an entirely automated ranking, you'll notice certain "human" factors missing.

For instance, the method doesn't know yet that Shaq is about to come back for Miami, or that the Nuggets have been playing without Carmelo Anthony for 15 games.

Along the same lines, it doesn't take into account injuries, trades, controversial calls or any other variables -- just the scores, please.

Nonetheless, it can be very useful because it allows us to see what the landscape looks like when we remove our usual filters.

We hope you enjoy our new daily power rankings.

HOLLINGER'S SECRET FORMULA
RATING = (((SOS-0.5)/0.037)*0.67) + (((SOSL10-0.5)/0.037)*0.33) + 100 + (0.67*(MARG+(((ROAD-HOME)*3.5)/(GAMES))) + (0.33*(MARGL10+(((ROAD10-HOME10)*3.5)/(10)))))

SOS = Season Win/Loss percentage of team's opponents, expressed as a decimal (e.g., .500)

SOSL10 = Season Win/Loss percentage of team's last 10 opponents, expressed as a decimal (e.g., .500)

MARG = Team's average scoring margin

MARGL10 = Team's average scoring margin over the last 10 games

HOME = Team's home games

HOMEL10 = Team's home games over the last 10 games

ROAD = Team's road games

ROADL10 = Team's road games over the last 10 games

GAMES = Team's total games

Murphy3
01-18-2007, 10:30 PM
Again, if you read his explanation, he isn't using records AT ALL. So records literally do NOT matter.

So when you take into account the fact that point differential is his most important category, you can see how his rankings have them higher.

I personally agree with you. It's idiotic for any kind of ranking to have the Suns ahead of the Mavs, but his parameters are what they are, I guess.
I know what he does to calculate. I'm just saying that common sense concerning what I mentioned SHOULD put the Mavs at the #1 spot.

I"m just saying that IT SHOULD be taken into account and that what I've mentioned should be enough to outweigh any minimal advantage that the Suns might have elsewhere.

I'm sorry, but a 12 point win by the Suns over JoBlo's Liquor is no better than an 8 point win by the Mavs over the same team... And I know that you know that.. Point differential can be extremely deceiving in that manner.

WurzburgBorn
01-19-2007, 12:36 PM
I'm sorry, but a 12 point win by the Suns over JoBlo's Liquor is no better than an 8 point win by the Mavs over the same team... And I know that you know that.. Point differential can be extremely deceiving in that manner.

Hollinger knows this. He probably deliberately inlcuded point differenttial instead of offensive and defensive efficiency per 100 possessions so he could get the Suns the #1 spot instead of Dallas.
After all, he wanted HIS power rankings to be a little different from Marc Stein's, and Stein has the Mavs at #1.

dallas85
01-19-2007, 12:39 PM
Well, you hit it. Point differential. His calculation weighs point differential as the very most important factor, and it obviously does not weigh head to head matchups at all.

In fact, Hollinger feels that an entire season against other teams is more predictave then four games where the two teams play each other. It's in interesting theory, but it completely ignores the reality of how one team matches up against another.

How did the Heat do against top opponents last season... I forget.

jthig32
01-19-2007, 12:51 PM
How did the Heat do against top opponents last season... I forget.

Not real well. They definitely hit a higher gear when the playoffs started, and then got hot and some help to beat a superior team in the Finals.

This ranking is not trying to predict that, however. This is trying to settle on who the best team is RIGHT NOW, and no one in their right mind can argue the Suns are better than the Mavs RIGHT NOW.

Windmill360
01-21-2007, 06:28 AM
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2fhollinger%2fstatistics

Dirk # 1 in player efficiency rankings per Hollinger.

dude1394
01-21-2007, 11:41 AM
I was looking at dirk's stats right now and they really are pretty impressive.

His FG% is 50%. 3pt% is 42%, FT% 89.9, RPG 9.5, ORPG 1.5, APG 3.2-> getting closer to 4. 36.3 MPG and 25.0 PPG.

He's just out of his mind right now.

kg_veteran
01-25-2007, 10:56 AM
I Beg To Differential


Rankings, Rankings, Rankings The NBA is far enough into the season that rankings such as Stein, Hollinger, Sagarin and Knickerblogger generate heated debate. We the fans often go with our gut in response to outsiders ranking our team.

As we yell at the top of our lungs, the Staterati attempt to explain the why and how of their systems. There are real differences among the rankings, but one thing you’ll hear just about everyone mention is point differential.

A Win Is A Win, Right? The concept is simple. How much has a team outscored its’ opponents by? This idea migrated to basketball via Bill James. James found a strong correlation between runs scored/allowed and winning percentage in baseball. You can find the formula James used, as well as Dean Oliver’s basketball version at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyt...xpectati…. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_expectati%E2%80%A6.) Because this formula predicts team success fairly accurately, many use it to state what a team’s expected win % is.

And the short hand version of that is, “What’s that team’s point differential?”

Best In The West Which brings us to the debate raging over which team is currently tops in the Western Conference. The three teams in contention are the Mavs, Suns and Spurs. For whatever reason, most people (myself included) think of the Spurs as a little too old. This leaves the Mavs and Suns. Some go with record and pick the Mavs. But there are those out there that look at the point differential and pick the Suns.

All statistics compiled through Monday January 22, 2007

Mavs 34-8, +7.1
Suns 32-8, +8.9

The Mavs had played two more games than the Suns, but their records were comparable. Yet the Suns, on average, beat their opponents by 8.9 points per game. The Mavs, only by 7.1. In fact, the Suns sported the the biggest point differential in the NBA. And that’s just points per game. If we break it down into offensive and defensive ratings (points per 100 possessions) the Suns sport a +10.4 differential and the Mavs +7.7. The Suns are even further out ahead.

Here’s why I think that doesn’t tell the real story in this case.

Strength of Schedule Phoenix has had a much weaker schedule than Dallas to this point. Here’s how it breaks down.

Mavs vs Top 10 Teams 12-6, vs Top 16 18-6
Suns vs Top 10 Teams 4-7, vs Top 16 12-7

Sagarin’s Top 10 Teams are, in order: Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio, Utah, Houston, LA Lakers, Chicago, Washington, Denver and Detroit. The Top 16 include: Cleveland, Orlando, Minnesota, Indiana, Toronto and New Jersey. If you look only at win-loss record, everything would stay the same except that the Bulls and Cavs change places in the 10/16 breakdown.

The first thing you’ll notice is that Dallas has played 18 games out of 42 against Top 10 teams. 24 out of 42 against Top 16 teams. That’s slightly more than half against the top half of the NBA. Phoenix has played only 11 games out of 40 against the Top 10. They played 19 of 40 against the Top 16, which is much more comparable to Dallas’ schedule. But it is clear that Dallas has faced more elite competition. My thought then, is that the Suns point differential is in part so high because they have beaten up on lowly teams.

The Test What I did was look at the Mavs first 42 games and the Suns first 40. (I know, the sample isn’t identical, but I’m just looking for close estimates.) I compiled point differentials for both teams against Top 10 teams and Top 16 teams. I further compiled two sets of Top 10 numbers: One where the Bulls were in it, the other had the Cavs instead. My hope was to see how the two teams played against similar opponents. Here’s what I found:

Mavs Top 10(Bulls) +2.11, Top 10(Cavs) +1.53, Top 16 +3.83 points per game
Suns Top 10(Bulls) -0.27, Top 10(Cavs) +1.36, Top 16 +5 point per game

And if we switch to offensive rating:

Mavs Top 10(Bulls) +2.39, Top 10 (Cavs) +1.73, Top 16 +4.33
Suns Top 10(Bulls) -0.29, Top 10(Cavs) +1.43, Top 16 +5.25

In both examples the Suns still hold the edge in point differential against the Top 16. But if we look at the Top 10 the Mavs hold the advantage. So at the moment, I’d have to say they are the better team. After Phoenix plays some more Top 10 teams I might come to a different conclusion. But I reserve judgment for now.

[Neither team has that many outlier games. The Suns had one win by 19 and another by 30. But most were closer to ten or less. The same is true of the Mavs who had wins of 27, 19 and 19 along with offsetting losses of 31 and 22 (the first was early season).]

Wrap It Up, Man! Point differential makes sense. It is a useful tool that has proven itself over time. But we must be careful not to use it without thinking. The current Mavs-Suns case is an example of how other factors can corrupt point differential.

link (http://www.courtsidetimes.net/articles/666/)

jthig32
01-25-2007, 11:03 AM
Now THAT is some analysis..

Windmill360
01-25-2007, 11:07 AM
suck on that, phoenix jockriders.

chumdawg
01-25-2007, 12:04 PM
We might also recall that the Mavs had the Spurs edged in 2003 in point differential. And of course, we all remember how that one turned out.

kg_veteran
01-25-2007, 12:11 PM
We might also recall that the Mavs had the Spurs edged in 2003 in point differential. And of course, we all remember how that one turned out.

Yes, we do.

sike
01-25-2007, 02:11 PM
people are dumb...and those who jumps through hoops to defend their foolishness are the dumbest.

DarenG
01-25-2007, 05:45 PM
I think people are getting 2 worked up. I can see an argument both ways about which team is better. It's really about whos 1a and 1aa. This will shake out by the end of the season and if not then, in the playoffs. I think the reason Phx is getting the edge in this case is because they have added back a major piece in Amare. The last time Amare was in uniform in the playoffs they beat us. So I am sure some media pundits are factoring that in. Having said that, we will prove it sooner or later.

V2M
01-25-2007, 06:33 PM
DarenG- I agree that both teams are close and we can make a case for why one could be slightly better than the other. Most on this board are rational, logical folks and they'd understand and agree with that.

But what most of us are getting riled up over is due to these idiot writers who talk up Suns like it's the greatest team ever while clearly downplaying or even ignoring the fact that there's a team now that actually has a better record overall, head2head or against other elite teams!!

MFFL
02-10-2007, 10:26 AM
Despite trailing the Mavs by TWO FULL games, Phoenix is still ahead of Dallas in the Hollinger ratings.

Sad.

vjz
02-10-2007, 10:42 AM
Still, nice comment by Jay (Dallas):

I wake up the morning after Dirk posts 38 pts, 10 reb, 6 asst, 4 blocks, 3 steals, 0 TO, 14-20 FG, 2-2 3s, 8-9 FTs only to read a nice article about Nash being MVP worthy by the USA Today. And I see Bosh as Daily Dime's top performer who shot 13 for 25 from the field. Does anyone BUT me know about Dirk yet?

dude1394
02-10-2007, 11:19 AM
Despite trailing the Mavs by TWO FULL games, Phoenix is still ahead of Dallas in the Hollinger ratings.

Sad.

Pretty sad for hollinger's rep, if he had any. (He may have, I just don't know his work that much). How many games behind another team do they have to fall before they are not ranked ahead of them? Must be at least 4?

HexNBA
02-10-2007, 11:36 AM
Phoenix' score dropped quite a bit, I think another game will do it

jthig32
02-10-2007, 11:40 AM
Pretty sad for hollinger's rep, if he had any. (He may have, I just don't know his work that much). How many games behind another team do they have to fall before they are not ranked ahead of them? Must be at least 4?

You know, I was looking at his rankings the other day, and realized something. The whole point of his rankings is that he doesn't believe win/loss record is a good indicator of a team. Or at least, not as good of an indicator as margin of victory. So, he uses margin of victory as his main piece in his formula.

However, he also uses strength of schedule in his formula. And how does he determine strength of schedule? Opponents' won/loss record! That make any sense to anyone?

dude1394
02-10-2007, 11:42 AM
You know, I was looking at his rankings the other day, and realized something. The whole point of his rankings is that he doesn't believe win/loss record is a good indicator of a team. Or at least, not as good of an indicator as margin of victory. So, he uses margin of victory as his main piece in his formula.

However, he also uses strength of schedule in his formula. And how does he determine strength of schedule? Opponents' won/loss record! That make any sense to anyone?

Well no. It obviously should be margin of victory.

Five-ofan
02-10-2007, 12:29 PM
btw dallas is still closer to SA than they are to phoenix in his rankings. Before all the losses last night, they were closer to the rockets and SA was about to pass dallas.

Stranger
02-10-2007, 01:15 PM
Point differential automatically favors Phoenix because of the speed of their game. Even if they are winning at the same rate as the Mavs, they get more possessions to get separation on the scoreboard.

Dirkadirkastan
02-10-2007, 01:18 PM
Point differential automatically favors Phoenix because of the speed of their game. Even if they are winning at the same rate as the Mavs, they get more possessions to get separation on the scoreboard.

My friend emailed Hollinger with the exact same complaint and never got a response.

dirno2000
02-10-2007, 02:07 PM
In addition to pace, the thing that kills us from a point differential stantpoint is our three blowout losses. PHX hasn't lost a game by double figures while we have losses of 31,18 and 22. FWIW If you take our double diget losses down to 9, our point differential goes from 7.3 to 8.22. Of course that's probably not fair to the Suns since not losing by more than 9 through 50 games is an impressive feat.

The thing that jumps out at me even more than the fact that we're behind the Suns is that the Spurs are closer to us than we are to PXH. I hate to criticize his formula just because I don't like the output but that doesn't make sense.

atrewsfan
02-10-2007, 02:15 PM
If it's a given that the power rankings have been derived through what is essentially junk science, why do people keep talking about it as if it still means anything?

dude1394
02-10-2007, 02:17 PM
If it's a given that the power rankings have been derived through what is essentially junk science, why do people keep talking about it as if it still means anything?

Why do you continue to post things to try and get folks to not post? Why not just leave it alone if you aren't interested in the conversation?

atrewsfan
02-10-2007, 02:21 PM
I'm just pointing out the best way to disrespect something is to not give it any attention and let it die, kind of like what usually happens to my posts lol....

WurzburgBorn
02-10-2007, 04:24 PM
My friend emailed Hollinger with the exact same complaint and never got a response.

And he won't. Your friend's point was obvious to Hollinger before he devised the rankings. Hollinger may be delusional, but he's not stupid. The formula for his rankings was DELIBERATELY designed to put his favored team, the Suns, in the #1 spot. After all, it's not very interesting to start a new power rankings that has the same team at #1 as the other power rankings.

Dirkadirkastan
02-10-2007, 06:53 PM
Why do you continue to post things to try and get folks to not post? Why not just leave it alone if you aren't interested in the conversation?

This post is very entertaining. Apparently, dude is trying to get atrews to stop posting because atrews is trying to get other people to stop posting.

Maybe someone should start the Official Silent Treatment Thread. How the hell would that work? It would probably just die very quickly.

Five-ofan
02-10-2007, 07:03 PM
I know its purely statistical but there should be a common sense element to these rankings. San Antonio is still closer to dallas than dallas is to phoenix. Looking at the standings I notice that San Antonio is the same distance behind the mavs that the CLIPPERS are behind them. (you can look it up) Yet the clippers role in at a solid 16th place in these rankings and 7 points behind SA. (i know its based on MOV)

There are 2 problems with this ranking. One, as Dlord pointed out, despite hollingers claim to the contrary dallas has found a way to replicate winning close games. Its called always have the best player on the floor and play great defense. The other problem is the huge differential in the minutes between Dallas' top players and phoenix's top players. Phoenix top 6 players play 214.5 mpg and Dallas' play 181.9 mpg. Thats comes out to be a 32.6 mpg differential. Basically what the MOV stat tells us is that the phoenix rotation players are better than Dallas' scrubs. No shit sherlock. I could have told you that without making any formula...

chumdawg
02-10-2007, 07:13 PM
You know, I was looking at his rankings the other day, and realized something. The whole point of his rankings is that he doesn't believe win/loss record is a good indicator of a team. Or at least, not as good of an indicator as margin of victory. So, he uses margin of victory as his main piece in his formula.

However, he also uses strength of schedule in his formula. And how does he determine strength of schedule? Opponents' won/loss record! That make any sense to anyone?He's using the .037 factor to effectively convert opponents' win percentage to victory margin.

My guess is that the reason he does this for opponents but not for the team in question is that the variance in wins and losses due to "luck" in close finishes (which he seems to believe fundamentally in) gets reduced almost down to nothing when you are pooling the collective results of all games for all opponents...but that the "lucky" or "unlucky" finishes can have a substantial effect on any one team taken by itself.

Make more sense now?

I wouldn't get too wound up about his power ranking system. It obviously isn't perfect, but it is just about as obvious that there won't be any perfect system coming any time soon--at least not without a ton of work.

If winning percentage is your thing, or even if margin of victory is your thing, go on and make your judgments based on those, which are readily available. Hollinger is just trying to dig a little deeper. Personally, I think it's probably a step in the right direction as far as analysis goes, but like anything else it should be taken in context and used appropriately. In other words, I don't think Hollinger is making any claims about this model necessarily reliably predicting the outcome a head-to-head playoff matchup between two teams so closely matched at the top of his list as Dallas and Phoenix are.

Thespiralgoeson
02-10-2007, 07:27 PM
I like Hollinger. I don't know if his ranking system really gives us any clue at all as to who's better between the Mavs and Suns, but the guy at least his his own original thoughts. Unlike almost everyone else who covers the NBA, Hollinger actually draws his own conclusions, instead of just spouting out the same tired old cliches.

LRB
02-10-2007, 07:41 PM
I think we should be proud that the Mavs are the only team in the NBA that blows his theory on the importance of margin of victory. I think that is just more confirmation that the Mavs are the best in the NBA.

I think it's also funny how Phoenix is still 2 games behind us despite a much weaker schedule and there all so impressive margin of victory. Maybe Hollinger can come up with a trophy for best margin of victory that the Suns can take fishing with them in May.

dude1394
02-10-2007, 08:09 PM
This post is very entertaining. Apparently, dude is trying to get atrews to stop posting because atrews is trying to get other people to stop posting.

Maybe someone should start the Official Silent Treatment Thread. How the hell would that work? It would probably just die very quickly.

Sort of like looking at a mirror in a mirror in a mirror? :)

I actually posted because this was the second thread in a span of a minute where he basically said the same thing on different subjects. But yea'...pretty funny.

chumdawg
02-10-2007, 08:35 PM
I think we should be proud that the Mavs are the only team in the NBA that blows his theory on the importance of margin of victory. I think that is just more confirmation that the Mavs are the best in the NBA.

I think it's also funny how Phoenix is still 2 games behind us despite a much weaker schedule and there all so impressive margin of victory. Maybe Hollinger can come up with a trophy for best margin of victory that the Suns can take fishing with them in May.The Mavs aren't the only ones ranked lower than most think they should be. I believe I read that--at least when the first rankings came out--he had the Lakers around 10th, while several others had them up around 5th due to their relative success against an extraordinarily tough schedule.

The only trouble with your comment regarding the theoretical trophy that the Suns can go fishing with in May is that more often than not, the team that wins that theoretical trophy will also win the REAL trophy in June. Margin of victory pythags are very well respected in the stats community for one reason: historically they show a very strong correlation to ultimate team strength, across all the team sports.

Now, that is in many cases a meaningless observation, because win percentage itself is also strongly correlated to team strength, obviously. But what the stats guys try to do (and sometimes succeed at) is identify teams that actually play better than their win-loss record--and of course, vice versa.

I read, for example, of a stark situation (forgive me, I don't recall the exact details) of the Yankees and the Pirates, I think it was, in a World Series matchup. The Yanks outscored the Bucs something like 55-27, yet lost the series. And the next year the Yankees won the championship while the Bucs missed the playoffs. Sometimes you can figure out when a team is playing over its head, and adjust your expectations accordingly.

And of course, this also serves to demonstrate the vagaries in a playoff series, even a long one. Funny stuff can, and often does, happen. That's why I tend to bristle at statements that proclaim boldly how one team can "never" win with a certain style, or somesuch. Give it enough time, and it's almost certain that eventually some team will.

Five-ofan
02-10-2007, 08:38 PM
The Mavs aren't the only ones ranked lower than most think the should be. I believe I read that--at least when the first rankings came out--he the Lakers around 10th, while several others had them up around 5th due to their relative success against an extraordinary tough schedule.

The only trouble with your comment regarding the theoretical trophy that the Suns can go fishing with in May is that more often than not, the team that wins that theoretical trophy will also win the REAL trophy in June. Margin of victory pythags are very well respected in the stats community for one reason: historically they show a very strong correlation to ultimate team strength, across all the team sports.

Now, that is in many cases as meaningless observation, because win percentage itself is also strongly correlated to team strength, obviously. But what the stats guys try to do (and sometimes succeed at) is identifying teams that actually play better than their win-loss record--and of course, vice versa.

I read, for example, of a stark situation (forgive me, I don't recall the exact details) of the Yankees and the Pirates, I think it was, in a World Series matchup. The Yanks outscored the Bucs something like 55-27, yet lost the series. And the next year the Yankees won the championship while the Bucs missed the playoffs. Sometimes you can figure out when a team is playing over its head, and adjust your expectations accordingly.

And of course, this also serves to demonstrate the vagaries in a playoff series, even a long one. Funny stuff can, and often does, happen. That's why I tend to bristle at statements that proclaim boldly how one team can "never" win with a certain style, or somesuch. Give it enough time, and it's almost certain that eventually some team will.
The problem with that theory is that actually the team with the absolute top point differential doesnt win the title more often than it does. Its just important to be in the top 3 or 4 usually but being number 1 doesnt do you anything better than being second or third has in the recent history.

Stranger
02-10-2007, 09:37 PM
For what its worth, Sagarin also uses a point differential ranking that ignores wins and losses called "pure points." He claims its the best predictor of future success. But it actually ranks the Mavs at #1 in this category, followed by the Spurs, with the Suns at #3. I don't know what criteria it takes into account to distinguish it from Hollinger's point-differential rankings.

chumdawg
02-10-2007, 10:03 PM
The problem with that theory is that actually the team with the absolute top point differential doesnt win the title more often than it does. Its just important to be in the top 3 or 4 usually but being number 1 doesnt do you anything better than being second or third has in the recent history.True. As it has happened the last three years, teams with--significantly, if I recall--lesser records have won the championship. I do believe that is a subject worth considering and discussing, as a recent trend that may have some meaning. (For what it's worth, my hunch is that it speaks to parity in the league, but that's for another day.)

If you will take it further back, though, you will start to see a strong correlation. A very strong one, I think.

Dirkadirkastan
02-10-2007, 10:33 PM
For what its worth, Sagarin also uses a point differential ranking that ignores wins and losses called "pure points." He claims its the best predictor of future success. But it actually ranks the Mavs at #1 in this category, followed by the Spurs, with the Suns at #3.

This is very strange. How is this possible?

Stranger
02-10-2007, 10:36 PM
True. As it has happened the last three years, teams with--significantly, if I recall--lesser records have won the championship. I do believe that is a subject worth considering and discussing, as a recent trend that may have some meaning. (For what it's worth, my hunch is that it speaks to parity in the league, but that's for another day.)

If you will take it further back, though, you will start to see a strong correlation. A very strong one, I think.

Here are the last 15 NBA champs, along with their league wide ranking in win percentage and point differential:

Year Champ Win % Point Differential
2006 Heat 5th 5th
2005 Spurs 2nd 1st
2004 Pistons 6th 2nd
2003 Spurs 1st 3rd
2002 Lakers 2nd 2nd
2001 Lakers 2nd 7th
2000 Lakers 1st 1st
1999 Spurs 1st 1st
1998 Bulls 1st 1st
1997 Bulls 1st 1st
1996 Bulls 1st 1st
1995 Rockets 10th 10th
1994 Rockets 2nd 6th
1993 Bulls 3rd 2nd
1992 Bulls 1st 1st

Average rank: win %: 2.6, point diff.: 2.9

Over that time, winning percentage has an edge over point differential in predicting the champion, but its very slight.

Edited to fix some screwy math.

Stranger
02-10-2007, 10:45 PM
This is very strange. How is this possible?

I've never been able to figure it out. It used to irk me, because it favored other teams over the Mavs even when they had a better point differential. The only thing I can think of it that it automatically throws out results that are more than + or - 20, or it somehow takes into account the strength of an opponent.

Here is the explanation from his site:

"However it [win-loss ranking] is less accurate in its predictions for upcoming games than is the PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters. PURE POINTS is also known as PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL and is the best single PREDICTOR of future games."

And the top three scores in this category:

1 Dallas Mavericks= 97.90 1
2 Phoenix Suns= 97.29 3
3 San Antonio Spurs=97.65 2

Phoenix is ranked ahead of the Spurs as the overall ranking also includes a win % score.

Sagarin (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nba0607.htm)

dirno2000
02-10-2007, 10:56 PM
For what it's worth, my hunch is that it speaks to parity in the league, but that's for another day.

I don't see this at all. Not including the finals there were 14 series played last year and, off the top of my head, I can only remember the lower seeded team winning 2. Dallas over SA and Miami over Det.

I'll bet that if you check the 2 or 3 before that the results will be similar.

chumdawg
02-10-2007, 11:13 PM
Why didn't you include the Finals?

What I was thinking at the time was more along the lines of parity toward the top, rather than the kind of parity we have witnessed as more of a league-wide thing in the NFL. Sorry to have been unclear. Again, what I meant was something more like the top team(s) not being as dominant as they have in years past.

Granted, this is probably as much down to the lack of generational players (Jordan) or teams (Lakers and Celtics) as much as anything else, but it's still an effect.

Captain Disaster
02-10-2007, 11:34 PM
Phoenix always gets to have an excuse: they play such a short rotation that whenever they have injuries (just like everyone else), their supporters can ALWAYS claim that they were really the better team if only their best players had played. I really hope that the Spurs, Rockets, Jazz, Nuggets, Lakers, & Mavs clean up on their butts the rest of the way to put them in their place. They are not even CLOSE to being one of the greatest teams of all-time! How can the media continue to entertain this notion when THEY HAVEN'T WON ANYTHING!!!

What's wrong with people nowadays; are they really this stupid?

Greatest team: what a pathetic joke!! And of course Dwade is MJ!! And Nash is a three-time MVP (he only deserved maybe ONE) who is also better than MAGIC, STOCKTON, the BIG O, etc...!! Make me sick!

MFFL
02-11-2007, 10:47 PM
I wonder if TODAY will finally put the Mavs #1 (having a three full game lead you know)?

wmbwinn
02-11-2007, 11:11 PM
I found the total shots attempted by each team and the total number of shots allowed to be taken by the opponent. This is more lopsided than I first imagined comparing the Mavs to the Suns.

http://www.dougstats.com/06-07RD.Team.txt

the above are the raw stats for the team's offense (ie, fga is field goals attempted by the team's offense).

http://www.dougstats.com/06-07RD.Team.Opp.txt

the above are the team's raw stats for what it allowed the opposing team to do against them (ie, the fga is now the field goals attempted by the opposing team).

So, the Mavs (at least by the last time Doug did his stats, 2/10/07) have taken 3,964 shots and have allowed our opponents to take 3,787 shots for a differential of +177.

The Suns have taken 4,163 shots and have allowed their opponents to take a whopping 4,344 shots for a differential of -181.

So, the situation is bigger than I thought. The Mavs have an advantage in shots taken and the Suns actually allow their opponents to take more shots than they do...

Now, factor in the fact that the Mavs allow fewer of those shots to be successful (see the 82 games web site, Mavs' defense allows an "effective field goal percentage of .476 or 47.6% and the Suns' defense allows an "effective field goal percentage of .491 or 49.1%).

And, lastly, consider that even by Hollinger's method, that the Mavs and Suns essentially have the same points scored vs. points allowed differential...

The Mavs have only taken 199 fewer shots than the Suns for the whole season which is amazing considering the extreme difference in their styles. That is only 3.9 shots less per game than the Suns...

The Mavs get their high number of shots from rebounds, blocked shots, steals, low turnovers, etc. on defense (and offense due to rebounds).

So, the Mavs take almost as many shots as the Suns do per game. The Mavs play better defense and allow fewer shots to be taken and allow fewer shots to be successful. That is why the Mavs are better when the two teams play each other.

Dirkadirkastan
02-12-2007, 02:00 AM
The description for Phoenix in Hollinger's rankings:

"Mike (Phoenix)
I feel sorry for the Bulls. Angry Nash, Angrier D'Antoni, Force of Nature Amare and 'Trix making up for the last few games. Duck and cover Chicago, duck and cover. Too bad we aren't playing the Mavs."

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Dirkadirkastan
02-12-2007, 02:11 AM
I wonder if TODAY will finally put the Mavs #1 (having a three full game lead you know)?

Considering the fact that a nine point loss actually made the Suns rating go UP...

No.

SaltwaterChaffy
02-12-2007, 04:40 AM
Finally #1 in Hollinger rankings, if anyone cares.

Windmill360
02-12-2007, 04:46 AM
we are finally #1. (just changed) Does this mean the world is going to end?

Dirkadirkastan
02-12-2007, 05:11 AM
we are finally #1. (just changed) Does this mean the world is going to end?

No, it just means Hollinger is going to revise his formula.

Thespiralgoeson
02-12-2007, 07:27 AM
No, it just means Hollinger is going to revise his formula.

Hollinger is no Suns homer if that's what you're saying. He's just a numbers guy. This guy has been the Mavs' only friend in the media for quite some time. I doubt you'll find a bigger Dirk fan in the national media than Hollinger.

WurzburgBorn
02-12-2007, 10:51 AM
WHo would have thought it would only take a 3 game lead to get us over the Suns in Holllinger's rankings?

Hollinger is definitely a stat guy, but that doesn't make him unbiased. Read what he's written about Nash and Phoenix this season. He is the prototypical Suns homer.

Thespiralgoeson
02-12-2007, 05:14 PM
WHo would have thought it would only take a 3 game lead to get us over the Suns in Holllinger's rankings?

Hollinger is definitely a stat guy, but that doesn't make him unbiased. Read what he's written about Nash and Phoenix this season. He is the prototypical Suns homer.

I say Hollinger is unbiased because he's NEVER been a homer for any team, and I've been reading his stuff for a long team. If he's such a Suns homer, then why is he picking Dirk for MVP? Why did he say that Nash winning the MVP last year was "outrageous?" This guy was the ONLY dude in the national media that picked the Mavs to win the west last year when every other moron was still picking the Spurs. Prototypical Suns homer my ass.

WurzburgBorn
02-12-2007, 06:01 PM
I say Hollinger is unbiased because he's NEVER been a homer for any team, and I've been reading his stuff for a long team. If he's such a Suns homer, then why is he picking Dirk for MVP? Why did he say that Nash winning the MVP last year was "outrageous?" This guy was the ONLY dude in the national media that picked the Mavs to win the west last year when every other moron was still picking the Spurs. Prototypical Suns homer my ass.

Well, we'll have to disagree then, because I read his stuff, even like much of it, but definitely see him as a whopper of a Suns homer this season.

Edit: I've mentioned it before, but it seems very obvious to me that Hollinger specifically designed his power rankings formula so he could put the Suns at the top.

endrity
02-12-2007, 07:26 PM
I think Hollinger is as unbiased as they come. He loved the Mavs last year since the beginning, when people were wandering how we were gonna live without Finley. He said something like: "Dismiss them at your own peril. The Mavs have assembled a great cast and should the Spurs fall, the Cuban gang is waiting in the wings". I have that encrypted in my mind as he was the only one to give us any love, he has been saying for a couple of years that Dirk is MVP status. He just thinks that the Suns this year, with Amare, might be better. I disagree, but this is no reason why not to like the guy.

Murphy3
02-12-2007, 07:45 PM
It's fine that he loves that Mavs, but that doesn't mean that his formula that he uses to rank teams isn't flawed.

I don't think he's biased either. But, any ranking that had the Suns ahead of the Mavs even with the Mavs having a two game lead despite playing a tougher schedule is flawed.

blahblehblah
02-12-2007, 07:53 PM
Well, we'll have to disagree then, because I read his stuff, even like much of it, but definitely see him as a whopper of a Suns homer this season.

Edit: I've mentioned it before, but it seems very obvious to me that Hollinger specifically designed his power rankings formula so he could put the Suns at the top.
Agree to disagree? Hmmm I think not... TheSpiral gave you a multitutde of actual reasons explaining and supporting his views of why Hollinger is NOT as you charged a "Prototypical Suns homer." You on the other hand, respond with no support or explanation for your views except for continued vague references which has no support or basis. For example, saying you read his stuff and see him as a sun's homer does not support your argument that he is one. Reason being, as Spiral questioned you, what specifically did you read that makes you say or think this. You have yet to explain or give any basis or specific reasons which leads you to this conclusion beyond, "cuz I said so."

Lastly, you do know that Hollinger designed his power ranking formula prior to the season dont you? Are you saying he somehow knew that the sun's season would unfold statistically and so designed it to reflect that? Wow who knew Hollinger was prescient. Wait Mavs are currently in 1st place in his rankings... guess he is either not prescient, mistakenly design his formula wrong , is prescient designed it correctly and suns will be first again soon OR is not prescient or conspiring to put suns 1st but merely created a simple formula which plugs in the data every day to get a simple and not to be taken too seriously power ranking to compliments Stein's for ESPN. Hmm I'd myself believe the last possibility but I guess your explanation is much more plausible.

blahblehblah
02-12-2007, 08:06 PM
It's fine that he loves that Mavs, but that doesn't mean that his formula that he uses to rank teams isn't flawed.

I don't think he's biased either. But, any ranking that had the Suns ahead of the Mavs even with the Mavs having a two game lead despite playing a tougher schedule is flawed.
If someone ever created a power ranking formula that is not flawed and is 100% accurate, there would be no need to play the rest season.

Power ranking's are for amusement and why some of you take it so seriously is beyond me. Hollinger's power ranking is based mostly on what NBA statistition agree are the best measure for future wins, Margin of Victory. And like any rule or formula or statistical measures, there is ALWAYS an exception. The Mavs of last year and of this year is the exception and is one of the few that MOV probably does not "best" accurately reflect over other numbers such as total wins, win % etc. However that does not mean MOV as the best predicter of future wins is debunked, but rather it means that the MAvs are merely one of the few instances where it is not. For the rest of the teams in Hollinger Power ranking, using MOV is much more likely to yeild their win total by the end of the season than current win % or raw win/loss statistics.

mauijim
02-12-2007, 08:32 PM
Hollinger is no Suns homer if that's what you're saying. He's just a numbers guy. This guy has been the Mavs' only friend in the media for quite some time. I doubt you'll find a bigger Dirk fan in the national media than Hollinger.

agreed... the guy is unbiased as they come.

hell, he even gives my rockets much love.

SaltwaterChaffy
02-13-2007, 04:25 AM
Another perspective on Hollinger's rankings:

The Celtics have lost 18 games in a row, but are ahead of the Bucks, who have won 7 more games than the Celtics. Weird.

WurzburgBorn
02-13-2007, 11:08 AM
Agree to disagree? Hmmm I think not... TheSpiral gave you a multitutde of actual reasons explaining and supporting his views of why Hollinger is NOT as you charged a "Prototypical Suns homer."

Absolutely false. Here's what he said:
"If he's such a Suns homer, then why is he picking Dirk for MVP? Why did he say that Nash winning the MVP last year was "outrageous?" This guy was the ONLY dude in the national media that picked the Mavs to win the west last year when every other moron was still picking the Spurs. Prototypical Suns homer my ass."

Dirk for MVP last season? Easy call there.
Nash's 2nd in a row outrageous? I wouldn't take anybody who disagreed with that seriously.
So Hollinger appreciated the Mavs last year. So what? I did qualify my coment by saying the Hollinger seems like an obvious Suns homer THIS year. He thinks the Suns are the best team. I say Dallas, Utah, San Antonio, and maybe others are better. So from my POV, that makes him a Suns homer.

You on the other hand, respond with no support or explanation for your views except for continued vague references which has no support or basis.

So sorry that I didn't take the time out of my day to provide you with enough detailed support. I didn't realize more detail was needed as I think Hollinger's rankings clearly indicate that they are designed to favor Phoenix. MOV is clearly a stat that favors Phoenix and this was obvious long before this season started.

Reason being, as Spiral questioned you, what specifically did you read that makes you say or think this. You have yet to explain or give any basis or specific reasons which leads you to this conclusion beyond, "cuz I said so."
His rankings speak for themselves. They are specifically designed to award teams that play an uptempo style. Phoenix the prototypical example of that type of team. Until I hear one shred of evidence that can cover for this, it's very clear to me that Hollinger's rankings were designed to put the Suns at the top.

Lastly, you do know that Hollinger designed his power ranking formula prior to the season dont you?
If you're right about this point, it's news to me.
Hollinger's rankings were introduced in January. (during the middle of a Phoenix win streak. Possibly intentional as well, since his formula specifically rewards recent victories) But if you can show me that he came up with them at the beginning of the season, then I will admit I was ignorant of that point.

But even so...

Are you saying he somehow knew that the sun's season would unfold statistically and so designed it to reflect that? Wow who knew Hollinger was prescient.

OH YEAH! SO you think it would take somebody with ESP to realize that the Suns would have a great shot at number one in a rankings based on margin of victory before the season started. Yeah right.

W L PCT GB HM RD CONF DIV PF PA DIFF STRK L10
z-Detroit 64 18 .780 - 37-4 27-14 39-13 13-3 96.8 90.2 +6.7 Lost 2 6-4
z-San Antonio 63 19 .768 1 34-7 29-12 42-10 13-3 95.6 88.8 +6.8 Won 3 7-3
y-Phoenix 54 28 .659 10 31-10 23-18 32-20 10-6 108.4 102.8 +5.6 Won 2 5-5
y-Miami 52 30 .634 12 31-10 21-20 35-17 13-3 99.9 96.0 +3.9 Lost 3 4-6
y-New Jersey 49 33 .598 15 29-12 20-21 33-19 10-6 93.8 92.4 +1.4 Lost 2 5-5

Phoenix's mov was higher last season than it should have been relative to record, compared to other teams. So Hollinger took obvious things about Phoenix' style and designed a system of rankings that would give them the best shot at the top spot. I don't get how someone can fail to see this.

Wait Mavs are currently in 1st place in his rankings... guess he is either not prescient, mistakenly design his formula wrong , is prescient designed it correctly and suns will be first again soon OR is not prescient or conspiring to put suns 1st but merely created a simple formula which plugs in the data every day to get a simple and not to be taken too seriously power ranking to compliments Stein's for ESPN.

Bringing in Stein's rankings definitely supports my point. Hollinger wanted his to be different. What better way to show a difference than a different number one?
I never said he designed the rankings in such a way that Phoenix would be at #1 from start to finish during the season. I say that the rankings clearly favor the Suns. To my knowledge, when Hollinger's rankings were introduced in January, Dallas was clearly a better team, and Phoenix was clearly better according to Hollinger's formula.

Again, I usually like Hollinger's work. He usually looks at more important stats than MOV, like offensive and defensive efficiency per 100 possessions. Funny how he left that out of these rankings, eh? But I think these rankings of his are just a joke.

All disagreement aside though, I would appreciate a link or info showing me that Hollinger designed his rankings before the season started, as I did not know that was the case.

MFFL
02-15-2007, 11:12 AM
Hollinger has REALLY confused me now.

The Spurs have jumped up to #2 despite having a 5-5 record over the last 10 games - hell, they are 2-2 in the last 4. Current rating: 107.295, Previous Rating: 106.836.

I mean I could see the Suns FALLING to #3 but having the Spurs jump up that much?!?

And if the Mavs lose wouldn't that make the Spurs #1? How insane is THAT?

Five-ofan
02-21-2007, 09:01 AM
the spurs are about to pass the mavs in his rankings. On the brightside, the qoute about Dallas is from me. :)

"Mr. Hollinger, I know you have always believed (and had a lot of evidence to back this up) that the ability to win close games is not really a repeatable skill, which is why for the longest time you had Dallas behind Phoenix. Couldn't Dallas be the exception that proves the rule? I honestly do believe that they have learned how to win close games moreso than most teams. As Avery would say, it's the system."

mkat
02-21-2007, 12:04 PM
Hollinger has REALLY confused me now.

The Spurs have jumped up to #2 despite having a 5-5 record over the last 10 games - hell, they are 2-2 in the last 4. Current rating: 107.295, Previous Rating: 106.836.

I mean I could see the Suns FALLING to #3 but having the Spurs jump up that much?!?

And if the Mavs lose wouldn't that make the Spurs #1? How insane is THAT?

not very insane, seeing as how it's a pointless ranking.

who has won the most games and beaten the best teams should be number 1 (ie, the mavericks).

MFFL
02-22-2007, 09:13 AM
the spurs are about to pass the mavs in his rankings.

EIGHT full games ahead of the Spurs. We have went 9-1 in the last 10 games, the Spurs 6-4. Yet Hollinger ranks them ahead of Dallas?

Sigh

MFFL
02-22-2007, 09:14 AM
I think Hollinger is shooting for a new title with ESPN - the village idiot

Chicken Diavlo
02-22-2007, 09:35 AM
According to Hollinger... the Mavs have the highest SOS in the league if I am reading this right. And the Spurts have the 21st highest SOS. This is for the whole season, not the last 10. The Mavs are 8 games ahead of the Spurs... but the Spurs are still better, right?

V2M
02-22-2007, 09:50 AM
Hollinger must be on Cuban's payroll... nice lil' way to keep motivating this team!

robo98564
02-22-2007, 10:14 AM
have the mavs sitting at #2 behind the spurs.... WTF?!?!?!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerranking

Joey
02-22-2007, 10:24 AM
LOL This BCS ranking system...I am done with this ranking system. CBS Sportsline has Utah as number 2...I don't know where these writers come up with this stuff. It's humorous if you keep up with it.

V2M
02-22-2007, 10:25 AM
There's a thread in the "Around the NBA" section discussing this already.

robo98564
02-22-2007, 10:26 AM
LOL This BCS ranking system...I am done with this ranking system. CBS Sportsline has Utah as number 2...I don't know where these writers come up with this stuff. It's humorous if you keep up with it.
Atleast you can rationally argue Utah being in the top 5 and maybe the 2 spot. They are playing great ball WITHOUT boozer? But putting SA in front of Dallas when we are the hottest team in the league (what are we, 28-2 in our last 30, somethin like that) AND we have the best record... its just piss poor

nikeball
02-22-2007, 10:37 AM
i thought we were done with the Hollingner when he had Chuck Hayes as #10 (or something like that) most efficient player (PER) in the league. He is a moron. B.cS. Hollinger.

DubOverdose
02-22-2007, 10:39 AM
According to Hollinger... the Mavs have the highest SOS in the league if I am reading this right. And the Spurts have the 21st highest SOS. This is for the whole season, not the last 10. The Mavs are 8 games ahead of the Spurs... but the Spurs are still better, right?
I think his rankings put us at around 12th hardest. His rankings are split between two pages, so we could be #14 or #15, but I'm pretty sure we haven't had the "hardest."

NewMexiMav
02-22-2007, 11:05 AM
What a complete and absolute waste of time!

Where are the Abercrombee & Fitch Power Rankings? ;)

Keith_Go_Mavs
02-22-2007, 11:20 AM
have the mavs sitting at #2 behind the spurs.... WTF?!?!?!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerranking

Power rankings are a dime a dozen. Most, if not all of the other rankings have the Mavs still on top. The rankings at nba.com have the spurs in 7th place.


Go Mavs!!!!!

Five-ofan
02-22-2007, 11:23 AM
I think his rankings put us at around 12th hardest. His rankings are split between two pages, so we could be #14 or #15, but I'm pretty sure we haven't had the "hardest."
yeah we have had the hardest by his ranking. the mavs sos is at .514 which is the highest of anyone in the league. these rankings are just a joke.

joemoeschmoe
02-22-2007, 11:57 AM
Hollinger's idea that the best teams blow others out more and that winning close games isn't the sign of quality team is just wrong in basketball. His formula is based on baseball which the previous makes much more sense for. He needs to modify his formula because it has potential. It did predict Toronto's rise within the East. Still, even with his current formula, it doesn't seem like the Spurs should be ahead. Perhaps its a bug/typo in his formula.

What have the best teams in the playoffs done consistently? Win close games. All those close playoff games that MJ pulled off with stepping up late are the reason why MJ is so great. Change that to just good to mediocre late game play and Chi doesn't get anywhere close to 6 championships.

capitalcity
02-22-2007, 01:15 PM
I think Hollinger is shooting for a new title with ESPN - the village idiotHe'd better watch out. Merrill Hoge will fight to the death to defend his position.

ilMavvento
02-22-2007, 01:51 PM
the spurs are about to pass the mavs in his rankings. On the brightside, the qoute about Dallas is from me. :)

"Mr. Hollinger, I know you have always believed (and had a lot of evidence to back this up) that the ability to win close games is not really a repeatable skill, which is why for the longest time you had Dallas behind Phoenix. Couldn't Dallas be the exception that proves the rule? I honestly do believe that they have learned how to win close games moreso than most teams. As Avery would say, it's the system."
That's the most cogent comment I've seen on there, not surprising it came from here. I'm not really sure why there are even comments in the first place, but whatever.

I thought it was interesting experiment, but his formula is taking him into increasingly indefensible territory.

Kirobaito
02-22-2007, 05:37 PM
Essentially the Spurs are on top of the Mavs in his rankings because they have a lead in margin of victory that equates to one extra point scored or defended against every 16 or 17 games. About 5 points over the course of the season. How retarded.

WurzburgBorn
02-22-2007, 05:39 PM
John could save himself even more future embarassment by just renaming them the "margin of victory" rankings.

nashtymavsfan13
02-22-2007, 05:39 PM
These rankings are just redirkulous, they shouldn't be taken seriously. We know the Mavs are the best team in the league, and almost everyone else does too. If Hollinger can't see that it's his ignorance. Thanks for the laugh Hollinger.

RizAmlani
02-22-2007, 06:20 PM
Hollinger needs to wake up and realize that it isn't all numbers. Mavs have that swagger, they have 'IT'

robo98564
02-22-2007, 07:26 PM
Hollinger needs to wake up and realize that it isn't all numbers. Mavs have that swagger, they have 'IT'
even if it was all numbers, the mavs have MUCH better numbers... like 9 less losses, a stronger SOS and oh yea: 2 losses in the last 30 games!!! what a joke!

left texas
02-22-2007, 07:50 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerranking

Live power rankings. Interesting to say the least.

Meaningless! Useless as BHWT's.

alexamenos
02-23-2007, 11:07 AM
EIGHT full games ahead of the Spurs. We have went 9-1 in the last 10 games, the Spurs 6-4. Yet Hollinger ranks them ahead of Dallas?

Sigh

i have no earthly idea what hollinger's model is all about...

dallas is 2-1 head - head w/ spurs.
higher mov
tougher sos...

...with the exception of the sos(25%), dallas is ahead of the spurs in every category...and

EIGHT full games ahead fo the Spurs.

this is an absurd system.

it honestly doesn't bother me that some power ranking has the spurs above the mavs. it does, however, cause me great pain to know that a person (hollinger) who is mathematically and statistically my inferior has an espn job as an nba analyst while i don't.

robo98564
02-23-2007, 12:12 PM
it honestly doesn't bother me that some power ranking has the spurs above the mavs. it does, however, cause me great pain to know that a person (hollinger) who is mathematically and statistically my inferior has an espn job as an nba analyst while i'm not.
hahah thats great!

WurzburgBorn
02-23-2007, 12:29 PM
If Mr. Hollinger doesn't call off his power rankings soon, 82games.com may have to come up with a stat to replace PER just distance itself from his work. ;)

bigbsezwazup
02-23-2007, 10:21 PM
I hope the Celts will be No. 1 before the season is up in his rankings considering W-L record doesn't matter.

Murphy3
02-24-2007, 12:16 AM
Basically, Hollinger's penalizing the Mavs because their scrubs allow 20+ point leads to dwindle down to 10 points or so. If the Mavs had kept their foot on their opponents throat just a couple of more times and racked up 40 point victories instead of actually working on things with their scrubs, they'd be #1 with hollinger.

LRB
02-24-2007, 01:18 AM
Basically, Hollinger's penalizing the Mavs because their scrubs allow 20+ point leads to dwindle down to 10 points or so. If the Mavs had kept their foot on their opponents throat just a couple of more times and racked up 40 point victories instead of actually working on things with their scrubs, they'd be #1 with hollinger.

Exactly. Does keeping the starters in to run up the score during blowouts make a team more likely to win a championship? I think Hollingers one of the few people who actually believes that crap.

The thing with statistics is that you can make them say almost anything that you want them to. Hollingers system may work in some cases, even in most cases, but it certainly doesn't work in every case. There are exceptions. Hollingers system puts way too much emphasis on margin of victory and strength of schedule and too little on wins and losses. To Hollinger it would be better to win 1 game by 30 and lose 9 by 1 point each than to wind 10 by 1 point each. That's just plain stupid.

Dirkadirkastan
02-24-2007, 05:58 AM
If all MOV's 15+ were just averaged in as 15, that might make his formula more reasonable.

bobatundi
02-24-2007, 11:08 AM
That would make a lot more sense, but Hollinger actually shot that idea down in his FAQ that came out right after the rankings started. Shows Hollinger really doesn't understand statistical model building at all.

EricaLubarsky
02-24-2007, 11:32 AM
where would you be if you won games by an average of 45, lost by an average of 5, and had a record of 30-52?

jthig32
02-24-2007, 11:48 AM
where would you be if you won games by an average of 45, lost by an average of 5, and had a record of 30-52?

Very, VERY high.

LRB
02-24-2007, 12:17 PM
where would you be if you won games by an average of 45, lost by an average of 5, and had a record of 30-52?

In the lottery.

MFFL
02-25-2007, 10:09 AM
Now I'm even MORE confused. We put a 20 point beating on a PLAYOFF team and our score only goes up marginally. San Antonio puts a beating on lowly Atlanta and their rating goes up a TON.

Spurs 107.958 to 108.564
Mavs 107.856 to 107.943

I used to respect Hollinger but now he's being exposed as a simpleton.

bobatundi
02-25-2007, 10:15 AM
yeah...he's like the kid in DeLillo's "White Noise," insisting that it's raining because the weather says so, even though there is no rain hitting their car. the magic formula says the Spurs are the best, so Hollinger insists it must be so, despite the overwhelming abundance of evidence that the Mavs are clearly the better team. hollinger is, apparently, all about hollinger.

DirkGoesNuclear
02-25-2007, 11:22 AM
Now I'm even MORE confused. We put a 20 point beating on a PLAYOFF team and our score only goes up marginally. San Antonio puts a beating on lowly Atlanta and their rating goes up a TON.

Spurs 107.958 to 108.564
Mavs 107.856 to 107.943

I used to respect Hollinger but now he's being exposed as a simpleton.


John "my ranking, my rules" Hollinger has lost all credibility.

dirno2000
02-26-2007, 12:21 AM
Numbers show Spurs are No. 1
by: John Hollinger
posted: Sunday, February 25, 2007 | Feedback | Print Entry
filed under: San Antonio Spurs

One of the nice things about the blog is it gives me a chance to respond to the topics that are filling up my inbox.

And at the moment, the top question by an overwhelming margin is, to paraphrase, "How the @#%$ are the Spurs ranked No. 1 in the Hollinger Power Rankings?"

At first glance, I understand how this seems totally illogical. San Antonio has lost twice as many games as Dallas, for crying out loud, and the Mavs are currently riding a 11-game winning streak -- their third double-digit win streak this year. They're 46-5 since an 0-4 start and haven't lost consecutive games in more than three months.

But the key word here is "first glance." One of the biggest reasons I created this ranking is to force people to look beyond the superficial first impression. In this case, it involves looking past win-loss record at the elements that go into it.

On its face this sounds absurd, I realize -- isn't winning the whole point? But as I've been trying to beat into people's heads over and over again, point differential is a better indicator of future success than win-loss record. In other words, if you were trying to pick a game between the Mavs and Spurs tomorrow, you'd be better off ignoring the standings at looking just at point differential.

And if you took that route, you'd be surprised to learn that San Antonio, not Dallas, has the best point differential in the league, at +7.9 points per game. (Actually, Dallas is third at +7.7 -- Phoenix also noses in ahead of them). That difference looms even larger once you consider only two teams have played more road games than the Spurs' 30 -- so the Spurs should be able to improve their mark during a home-laden final two months.

Additionally, the Spurs don't seem like they're losing any steam. In the last three weeks they've won games by 27, 25, and 31, helping contribute to their strong victory margin in recent play -- another major determinant in the Hollinger rankings.

Because of the Spurs' place in the standings, this has been perhaps the single biggest misunderstanding of the current season. Columnists are looking at the Spurs' won-loss record and falling all over themselves to write "What's Wrong with the Spurs?" columns.

Reality check: San Antonio won a team-record 63 games a year ago with a point differential of +6.8. This year they're more than a point per game better (They need to be, too: Those 63 wins didn't do them any good in the playoffs); they just haven't been as fortunate in close games (more on that in a minute).

And while the Spurs are disappointed because they're "only" third in Defensive Efficiency instead of their usual perch at No. 1 (they've been there five of the past six seasons), this is the best offensive team of the Popovich Era. San Antonio ranks sixth in the league in Offensive Efficiency, just 2.8 points per 100 possessions behind the Mavs. With their defensive advantage being as big as it is (3.0 points per 100 trips), San Antonio is still well equipped to rule the West.

By the way -- they're doing this while playing their scrubs for much of the game. No Spur is playing more than 35 minutes per game; Tim Duncan leads the team at 34.6. Tony Parker is only playing 33.0 minutes, Manu Ginobili a measly 27.8. No team is playing their starters less, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Spurs' big three will see a lot more action during the playoffs, making San Anotnio even tougher.

In other words, not only is there nothing "wrong" with the Spurs, this actually might be San Antonio's best team since their championship squad in 1999. The Spurs' problem isn't age or a lack of fire or any of the other ideas trotted out in recent weeks. It's that they're 5-10 in games decided by five points or less, while the Mavs are 12-2. That's the main reason the teams are 8 1/2 games apart in the standings, not any difference in the quality of their play.

I realize this is hard to swallow when one looks at the standings, but that's the whole point here -- I'm trying to get you to look beyond them. Once you do, it immediately becomes apparent that the Spurs are a major threat to win the championship, and that they're No. 1 in the rankings because, as heretical as this may sound, they're playing better than everyone else right now. Dallas included.

MFFL
02-26-2007, 12:28 AM
I realize this is hard to swallow when one looks at the standings, but that's the whole point here -- I'm trying to get you to look beyond them.

Hollinger sounds really defensive right now. For some reason he's convinced that he is right and his formula is so easy a caveman can do it.

MFFL
02-26-2007, 12:43 AM
Here is an interesting article - the only problem I have with the premise is that blowouts are a predictor. Of course your record in blowouts would be the same as your regular record - a good team will be on the giving end of a blowout FAR more likely than on the receiving end. Good teams RARELY get blown out.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.courtsidetimes.net/articles/337/
by Justin Kubatko | permalink | trackback | comments |
» Visit the author's site: http://www.basketball-reference.com

“Good teams win the close games.” That’s what the conventional wisdom would have us believe. But is that true? Do the good teams win the close games? To answer this question, I looked at how each team performed in close games versus how they performed overall. I chose to define a close game as a game that is decided by 5 or fewer points. If in fact it is true that the good teams win the close games, there should be a strong positive correlation between a team’s overall winning percentage and their winning percentage in close games.

Using all BAA/NBA regular season games from the 1946-47 season through the 2004-05 season, I calculated each team’s overall winning percentage and their winning percentage in close games. The correlation between the two winning percentages was 0.628 — a positive correlation, but not particularly strong. To put this another way, about 39 percent of the variability in overall winning percentage can be explained by its linear relationship with winning percentage in close games. A team’s winning percentage in close games is not a particularly reliable predictor of their overall winning percentage. Why would this be true? Because in a close game, luck plays a much larger role. The 2003-04 Detroit Pistons — the NBA champions — went just 12-17 in close games, while the team with the third-worst record in NBA history, the 1992-93 Dallas Mavericks, went 6-3 in close games. Did the Mavericks just “know how to win,” or is this result mainly a matter of luck?

Let’s look at how past NBA champions have fared in overall winning percentage, winning percentage in close games, and winning percentage in blowouts. Of the 59 champions, 30 finished first in overall winning percentage, and 17 finished second. Let me put this in a table:
Overall Win %
Rank Freq Percent
1 30 50.85
2 17 28.81
3 4 6.78
4 4 6.78
5 1 1.69
6 1 1.69
8 1 1.69
10 1 1.69

About 80 percent of NBA champions have finished with the first- or second-best record in the league. If the conventional wisdom is true, we would expect roughly 80 percent of NBA champions to finish first or second in the league in winning percentage in close games. However, that’s far from what actually happens:
Close Win %
Rank Freq Percent
1 12 20.34
2 10 16.95
3 8 13.56
4 5 8.47
5 8 13.56
6 1 1.69
7 1 1.69
8 1 1.69
9 2 3.39
10 1 1.69
11 1 1.69
12 3 5.08
13 1 1.69
14 1 1.69
16 1 1.69
17 1 1.69
20 1 1.69
22 1 1.69

Only 37 percent of NBA champions finish first or second in the league in winning percentage in close games, while 27 percent finish out of the top 5. Somewhat remarkably (at least if you believe the conventional wisdom), 11 of the 59 NBA champions (18.64 percent) have finished with a sub-.500 record in close games. Finally, only 7 NBA champions (11.86 percent) have had a winning percentage in close games that was better than their overall winning percentage.

If good teams don’t necessarily win the close games, then what do they do? Simple: They blow people out. I’ll define a blowout to be any game where the point differential is 15 points or more. The correlation between a team’s overall winning percentage and their winning percentage in blowouts is 0.899. That is, about 81 percent of the variability in overall winning percentage can be explained by its linear relationship with winning percentage in blowouts. I mentioned above that the 2003-04 Pistons were just 12-17 in close games, but they were 18-1 in blowouts. Meanwhile, the 1992-93 Mavericks — who had a better winning percentage than the Pistons in close games — were 0-44 in blowouts.

If we look at past NBA champions once again, we find that they are much more likely to finish near the top of the league in winning percentage in blowouts than winning percentage in close games:
Blowout Win %
Rank Freq Percent
1 25 42.37
2 13 22.03
3 9 15.25
4 2 3.39
5 5 8.47
6 1 1.69
7 2 3.39
10 1 1.69
12 1 1.69

About 65 percent of NBA champions have finished either first or second in the league in winning percentage in blowouts. (Recall that only 37 percent finished in the top two in winning percentage in close games.) No NBA champion has ever finished with a sub-.500 record in blowouts.

To further illustrate the disparity between looking at winning percentage in close games and winning percentage in blowouts, here are the top five teams from the 2004-05 season in winning percentage in close games:
Close Games
Team W-L Win %
WAS 20-10 .667
ORL 17-9 .654
DEN 12-7 .632
NJN 12-7 .632
PHO 10-6 .625

Note that only one of the four conference finalists — the Phoenix Suns — made the list above. Detroit (12-9), Miami (12-10), and San Antonio (10-10) were 14th, 15th, and 17th, respectively, in this category. Now here are the top five in winning percentage in blowouts:
Blowouts
Team W-L Win %
SAS 30-4 .882
MIA 18-3 .857
PHO 20-4 .833
DAL 20-5 .800
HOU 18-5 .783

The top three teams were all conference finalists (the Detroit Pistons finished in a tie for 10th in this category). If you were asked to name the five best teams in the NBA last season, the second list would be much closer to your answer than the first.

Let me wrap this up by summarizing the two key points of the article:

1. A team’s winning percentage in close games is not a particularly reliable predictor of their overall winning percentage.
2. A team’s winning percentage in blowouts is a much better predictor of their overall winning percentage than their winning percentage in close games.

The statement “good teams win the close games” does tend to be true, but a much stronger statement is “good teams win the blowouts.”

rabbitproof
02-26-2007, 04:16 AM
There's a problem in his logic. If this is suppose to be an indicator of future success, when did the Suns become better then the Mavericks since the Suns were ahead for a while. Now, does it mean the Spurs will become better then the Suns who will be better then the Mavericks (and the Spurs) first or become better then the Mavericks but not quite the Suns or perhaps both the Suns and Spurs will be better then each other because they're both indicated to be the best team in the future, of course, Dallas, the best team with the best record and likely to finish better then both future best Spurs and future best Suns, should perhaps be the best?

Two problems, John H. One, John H, is time-travel flip-flopping - shouldn't you come through with a prediction before forecasting another predication that will directly cancel out your initial prediction?

And dos, why try to indicate the future when the future has been foretold? 2007 belongs to the Mighty Dallas Mavericks. REEEEEEEEE-SPEKT.

edit: some "then" and "the" work done.

Thespiralgoeson
02-26-2007, 06:27 AM
I don't have a problem with the idea of margin of victory being an indicator of which teams are better than others. However, one must remember, when you take out the 0-4 start I bet the Mavs jump ahead of the Spurs and Suns in the ranking. Maybe that's cheating, but I certainly don't think the Mavs are the same team now that they were in November.

Usually Lurkin
02-26-2007, 09:13 AM
Numbers show Spurs are No. 1
by: John Hollinger
...
Reality check: San Antonio won a team-record 63 games a year ago with a point differential of +6.8. This year they're more than a point per game better (They need to be, too: Those 63 wins didn't do them any good in the playoffs); they just haven't been as fortunate in close games (more on that in a minute).
.

Uh, last year the Spurs were atop the point differential ranking, too, John. (Someone can check that below. I got these from ESPN, I think.)

I think the snarky comment about the win record, while leaving out mention of last years point differentials (which surely Hollinger has on his desktop) is a sign that he knows he's very desparately defending something that probably is not as solid as he wants to believe.


San Antonio 6.8
Detroit 6.7
Dallas 6.1
Phoenix 5.5
Miami 3.9

Dirkadirkastan
02-26-2007, 09:29 AM
Let's look at this from the other angle.

The Mavs are 21-4 in games decided by 9 or fewer points. Is that really determined by "luck"?

If close games were a matter of a coin flip, i.e. the probability the Mavs pull out a win in a close game is 50%, then the odds of winning 21 or more out of 25 is 0.04%. So it probably isn't pure luck.

What if they were 60% likely to pull out a single close win? Still only a 0.95% shot at winning 21+ of 25.

70%? A modest 9.05%.

At 80% there is finally a decent chance with 42.07%. For there to be a 50% chance of winning 21+ out of 25, there would have to be an 81.57% chance of winning a single close game.

Remarkably, you get almost the exact same result for the Mavs' 12-2 record in games decided by 5 or less. In order for the odds of winning 12+ out of 14 to be 50%, the odds for any one game must be 81.35%.

Yes, I think winning close games is a matter of skill, not luck.

Usually Lurkin
02-26-2007, 09:47 AM
to be fair, the fact that the Mavs have a tendency to get overconfident with big leads might need to be factored into power rankings. That was a big part of their finals story last year. Of course, beating San Antonio in close games was also a big part of the playoffs story.

Usually Lurkin
02-26-2007, 09:49 AM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dirkadirkastan again.


You'd think that a statistician would be comfortable testing against chance.

MFFL
02-26-2007, 11:04 PM
Galloway rips the Hollinger ranking.

ESPN Mavs section
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=dal
Galloway & Co.: 2/26 MP3 PodCast
Galloway talks about John Hollinger's NBA rankings with the Spurs as No. 1.

spreedom
02-26-2007, 11:09 PM
The points differential argument holds no water, because when games are decided by more than 20 points, the 4th quarter is typically meaningless.. so that's like saying it's better to pound a team for three quarters and have your scrubs trade baskets with the other team's scrubs than it is to win a competitive game that comes down to the final possession(s).

Hollinger is brutal.. does he even watch basketball?

Thespiralgoeson
02-27-2007, 07:59 PM
to be fair, the fact that the Mavs have a tendency to get overconfident with big leads might need to be factored into power rankings. That was a big part of their finals story last year. Of course, beating San Antonio in close games was also a big part of the playoffs story.


I don't think it has anything to do with overconfidence. It's Avery's rotations. He's gotten better about it lately, but earlier in the season he'd mostly play all the starters at the time and them completely empty the bench. And of course, when that happened, the offense, and the defense, fell apart and the other team would make a run. Honestly, how the f*ck is the team supposed to score when the lineup you have out there is AJ2, Buck, Stack, George, and Diop?!

FINtastic
02-27-2007, 08:12 PM
Let's look at this from the other angle.

The Mavs are 21-4 in games decided by 9 or fewer points. Is that really determined by "luck"?

If close games were a matter of a coin flip, i.e. the probability the Mavs pull out a win in a close game is 50%, then the odds of winning 21 or more out of 25 is 0.04%. So it probably isn't pure luck.

What if they were 60% likely to pull out a single close win? Still only a 0.95% shot at winning 21+ of 25.

70%? A modest 9.05%.

At 80% there is finally a decent chance with 42.07%. For there to be a 50% chance of winning 21+ out of 25, there would have to be an 81.57% chance of winning a single close game.

Remarkably, you get almost the exact same result for the Mavs' 12-2 record in games decided by 5 or less. In order for the odds of winning 12+ out of 14 to be 50%, the odds for any one game must be 81.35%.

Yes, I think winning close games is a matter of skill, not luck.

Nice probabibility work. I like you last line the best. Somehow the good teams know how to pull it out in close games. I remember how back in the day that I always wondered how the Spurs could pull it out at the end against us every single time. After a while I stopped chalking it up to luck and started to realize that they were simply better. Now you see the tide has turned. We've started winning those close games against the Spurs, and I think it's because we are simply the better team. The great teams know how to close games.