Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornDub
This is something of a myth. His MoV-based power rankings predicted the Spurs as winning the title, but they got several other things wrong. They didn't have the Warriors beating the Mavs, nor did they have the Cavs beating the Pistons in the ECF. Basically, Hollinger's statistical model happened to have a then three-time champion, 60+ win team at #1, and he acted like it was some sort of validation of his model when that team ultimately won the title. Were I not a Mavs fan, I could have picked the Spurs to win the title that year on the basis of several things other than MoV.
I don't deny that MoV has some strong correlation to a team's quality, but his model altogether suffers from several glaring weaknesses. It has been several seasons now (excluding 07-08) that he continues to insist that the Mavs have "fantastic good luck" in winning close games. How many seasons do the Mavs need to continue to dominate close games before he realizes that it has nothing to do with luck? The Mavs have a disproportionate amount of wins in close games because they have Dirk. Period.
|
I'd be interested to go back and take a look at how his rankings held up over time. All I remember is that I initially blew them off that season for the same stuff you were saying. The two teams in my eyes that looked most impressive that season were the Suns and the Mavs, and Hollinger's model bucked the trend with the Spurs at #1 and ended up being right. Maybe you were different, but I remember a lot of people on this board thought the Spurs weren't the same team that had won those 3 titles and that it was a bit of joke to have them on top of his power rankings.
I do disagree with Hollinger's belief that close games are a total coin flip, but there may be more probability in play than some fans want acknowledge. Kobe, despite all of his alleged "clutchness", still manages to lose close games too.