Hollinger's Team Forecast: Dallas Mavericks

[jthig32]

Hollinger's Team Forecast: Dallas Mavericks

By John Hollinger
ESPN Insider
(Archive)








Link:


2006-07 Recap

It was a dream season in Dallas. Motivated by the loss to the Heat in the Finals the previous June, the Mavs tore through the league en route to 67 regular-season wins, posting the 10th-best record in NBA history. Dirk Nowitzki won the MVP award, Josh Howard made his first All-Star team, and in the spring the Mavs cruised to …

… a six-game smackdown by 8th-seeded Golden State???
AP Photo/Jeff Chiu
Can Dirk and the Mavs rebound from a disappointing '06-07?



Huh???
Never has a team's postseason been so incongruous with its first 82 games. Nowitzki, who had the league's top PER among those who played at least 60 contests, was a disaster against Golden State, closing with one wide-open brick after another in the blowout loss in Game 6. Meanwhile, the Mavs' stingy defense suddenly became befuddled by the likes of Stephen Jackson and Matt Barnes.

But take a step back and look at the Mavs' season, and you'll see the Golden State series was part of a more general decline over the final months. To review, Dallas lost its first four games of 2006-07, then went on a ridiculous, unbelievable, unfathomable 50-5 tear to run away with the league's best record.

But from that point on, the Mavericks didn't play nearly as well. I don't say that just because they went "only" 17-6 the rest of the way, but also because of how that record was compiled. Starting on March 12, they had a 17-point loss to Golden State that offered an omen for the postseason. Then they lost to Phoenix before ripping off another nine-game win streak.
But this nine-game streak was done mostly with smoke and mirrors. Dallas won by 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 points, even though only two of the opponents had winning records. And Nowitzki, for all his brilliance, was decidedly less brilliant in the season's final two months.

In April, things got worse. The Mavs played five games against playoff teams and lost four of them -- the only win coming in the infamous Joey Crawford game when San Antonio's Tim Duncan was ejected before halftime. The other contests were a 22-point drubbing by Phoenix, a 75-71 snoozer in Denver, a 15-point loss to Utah and a 29-point blowout by Golden State.

The last game marked one of two odd late-season choices by coach Avery Johnson. It was the second-to-last game of the season and the Mavs could have helped eliminate their nemesis from the Bay with a win. But Johnson rested his starters and played all his scrubs that night -- it was never clear why, but Golden State won by 29 and that win helped the Warriors clinch a playoff spot.

C'est la vie, you might think, except that the Mavs hadn't beaten the Warriors in over a year and seemed a bit freaked out by this. Going up against former mentor Don Nelson, Johnson blinked before the opening tip of Game 1. He opted to start offensively-challenged Devean George and go small, the Mavs scored only 85 points in a defeat, and the tone was set for the whole series.
AP Photo/Don Ryan
Avery Johnson made a couple of unusual calls down the stretch.



The late slump explains some of the playoff woes, but even if you look at the full season the 67-win season starts to smell a bit fishy. Normally to win this many games you need to be both lucky and good -- either that or you need Michael Jordan on your team -- and the Mavs were a great example.

They outscored their opponents by 7.2 points per game, which is impressive, but normally teams who do that win 63.5 games, not 67. Dallas won more than its share because it was so fortunate in close contests, going an absurd 20-4 in games decided by five points or fewer. Normally I have to explain to people that this is almost pure luck rather than a sign of clutch ability, but given the Mavs' recent history this sort of goes without saying.

But let's get back to that decision to start George in Game 1, because it reflects an oddity in Dallas' approach that really cost the Mavs in the Golden State series -- the team's habit of genuflecting toward veteran role players.
After the loss to Miami in 2006, somehow the Mavs got it in their head that what they needed was more crumbling 30-something types around their stars. So they went out and picked up George, Greg Buckner and Austin Croshere.

The Mavs doled out 3,382 minutes -- or about 40 minutes a game -- to that trio, and were rewarded with a combined player efficiency ratio (PER) of 9.10. While George and Buckner had some defensive value, it's not much of an exaggeration to say Dallas could have pulled three guys out of the D-League and done just as well.
But these weren't D-League pickups or 10-day contracts -- the Mavs gave up real assets to get these guys. Dallas traded a talented shooting guard in Marquis Daniels to acquire Croshere, and used all of its free-agent dough on Buckner and George.

Worse yet, I sense the Mavs felt they succeeded because of those players, when actually they succeeded in spite of them. So when the going got tough against Golden State, the Mavs instinctively turned to those players instead of turning away -- especially to George and Buckner. Buckner played 44 playoff minutes and scored one measly point, while George saw nearly 20 minutes a night and shot 20 percent for the series with more turnovers than baskets.

The way it ended for the Mavs obviously left a bad taste in their mouths, but let's not forget that for most of the season they were really, really good. Dallas ranked second in the league in offensive efficiency thanks mostly to the incredible efficiency of Nowitzki, who created high-percentage shots while hardly ever turning the ball over. Howard, Jason Terry, Devin Harris and Jerry Stackhouse -- who had an unexpectedly strong campaign at 32 -- added to the fun, giving the Mavs several scorers who could punish opponents for doubling Dirk.

But one thing Dallas wasn't was a running team. While most casual fans, and some serious ones, still think of this as a freewheeling run-and-gun outfit, the Mavs have been among the league's turtles the past two seasons. Dallas played the league's third-slowest pace last season, preferring to isolate in the half court for Nowitzki, Howard or Stackhouse.

Defensively, the Mavs were nearly as good -- at least until that Golden State thing went down. Dallas finished the season ranked fifth in defensive efficiency, with Johnson taking a page from the Spurs' book by totally cutting off the 3-point line. Only 17.3 percent of opponent shots came from beyond the arc, putting Dallas a close second behind San Antonio, and on those few attempts the Mavs held opponents below the league average at 34.9 percent.

And despite their soft reputation, the Mavs were a very tough interior defensive squad. Dallas had the league's fourth-best defensive rebound rate and ranked eighth in blocks; the one area on D where the Mavs were below average was that they fouled at a much higher rate than the league average, which doesn't exactly reinforce their rep as softies.

While Nowitzki has made great strides on D, nearly all of Dallas' secondary players defended well too. DeSagana Diop is an ace in the middle, Harris will be an all-defense pick as soon as the coaches realize they're allowed to vote for him, and Howard is well above average as well.

[jthig32]

Offseason Moves

One reason the Mavs are good every year is that, despite the impulsive impression we may have of Mark Cuban, they do a great job of avoiding knee-jerk overreactions. Believe it or not, the money-to-burn Mavs have a good chance of being under the luxury tax threshold a year from now.
This was the second straight offseason of patience in Dallas, as the Mavs opted to target two needs -- backup shooting guard and backup power forward -- rather than go crazy because of what happened against Golden State. Read between the lines and you'll see the real offseason targets were "replacing Greg Buckner and Devean George," an appropriate change of course after last year's free agents flamed out.
While Dallas has the maximum 15 contracts on hand, the club's work may be unfinished. The Mavs are targeting both P.J. Brown and Chris Webber in free agency, but thus far neither has committed.



Fazekas

• Drafted Nick Fazekas, Reyshawn Terry and Renaldas Seibutis
Fazekas was the result of the Hawks' generosity, as Atlanta gave the Mavs a second-round pick for Anthony Johnson at the trade deadline last season. This was shockingly good news for Dallas, which would have pretty much paid somebody to take Johnson -- he isn't terrible, but he was making nearly $3 million to twiddle his thumbs and costing double that with luxury tax.
Needless to say, the Mavs couldn't believe that somebody would pay them for the trouble. And Fazekas was an inspired pick who should score and rebound at the pro level -- though he slipped in the draft because he can't defend.
Dallas' other two second-round picks went off to Europe, as the Mavs' overcrowded roster flashed a giant "No Vacancy" sign. But watch Terry next year, when he's likely to return to the U.S.

• Re-signed Devean George
I can't decide which amazes me more -- that George opted out of a deal that would pay him $2.2 million this season, or that Dallas gave him a raise to $2.5 million. Yes, he has his uses, but players such as these are fungible commodities. I have no idea why the Mavs value him so highly.



Stackhouse

• Re-signed Jerry Stackhouse
One of the oddities of the salary cap is that teams who are already over it have a strong incentive to overpay to keep their better free agents, since it's impossible to replace them once they leave. Seen in that light, Dallas' decision to pay Stackhouse $22 million over the next three years doesn't seem so odd. The Mavs weren't going to be able to replace this production even if they used their full midlevel exception, and had they done so it would have severely limited their options down the road.

• Signed Brandon Bass, waived Pops Mensah-Bonsu
I presume adding Bass was a CYA move in case Webber and Brown blow them off and George loses a step. Otherwise I wonder why they bothered. Bass is still quite young, but has done nothing of note in two seasons with the Hornets and as an undersized power forward is likely to keep taking his lumps. It cost nothing, but he's using up a roster spot and I can't imagine him being in the rotation for real.


Jones


• Signed Eddie Jones
At first glance this looks like the typical Mavs move of fawning over a decomposing vet for no reason, but read the fine print. Jones can still play, and Dallas got him cheap. A quality reserve guard who can defend and make jump shots was exactly what the Mavs needed against Golden State last season, and Dallas filled that need using only its biannual exception -- a two-year deal worth $3.8 million.

• Extended Devin Harris
The Mavs gave him a five-year, $42 million deal over the summer, removing any doubt over whether they still view him as their point guard of the future. That seems a wise decision. Though his point guard instincts are questionable at times, Harris already is an elite defender and can be a devastating penetrator at the offensive end. His PERs have been in the top 20 among point guards the past two seasons, and he's still young enough to get substantially better.


Hassell


• Traded Greg Buckner to Minnesota for Trenton Hassell
Everyone makes mistakes; the good teams make fewer of them, yes, but they also admit them quickly and move on, as the Mavs did here. Hassell can't score, but he's an elite wing defender who might have proven useful against Dwyane Wade two springs ago. Unfortunately, his contract is even worse than Buckner's, but Cuban has shown he can handle the added expense.

[jthig32]

Biggest Strength: One-On-One Play

The Mavs are the masters of the isolation, with Nowitzki leading the way. Setting up shop from his office at the top of the key, he can survey the defense before lofting a jumper over smaller defenders or taking bigger ones off the dribble.
But he's far from the only one. Dallas has several players who can wreak havoc if the opponent fails to match up correctly, as Howard, Stackhouse, Terry and Harris all are capable shot creators in individual matchups. Second-year pro J.J. Barea could be another -- his D-League numbers from last season were off the charts.

This is what enabled the Mavs to beat San Antonio in the playoffs two seasons ago, as they were able to take advantage of whatever mismatch presented itself by allowing that offensive player to attack. Conversely, one reason they struggled against the Warriors was that Golden State's lineup matched up so well against everyone besides Nowitzki, and Dirk couldn't find his jumper.




Biggest Weakness: Waiting For April

OK, I'm trying to find something here, but the Mavs are a deep, balanced team that won 67 games last season, so it takes some digging. My first instinct was to say "post offense," but they ranked second in the NBA in offensive efficiency -- how big of a problem can we be talking about? And while Avery Johnson made a few iffy moves last spring, does anyone seriously think he's a bad coach after the way he changed this team around defensively?


No, the Mavs' biggest enemy for the next six months will be between their ears. It's not as if they can improve on 67 wins, but meanwhile they're 2-8 in their last 10 playoff games. Basically, their entire regular season is a dress rehearsal for the playoffs and everybody knows it, so nothing they can do between now and April will mean anything to anyone. Then, once they hit the first pocket of adversity in the postseason, all the questions will start anew.

[jthig32]

Outlook

While I still get this uneasy feeling that 2006 was this team's best shot at a ring, one has to give the Mavs as good a chance as anyone of winning the title this season. Dallas will have to do a better job of focusing its energies toward the end of the schedule, as the club seemed to peak too early last season. But there's little question that this team will win 55-60 games and be one of the top five seeds in the Western Conference playoffs.


Even if they aren't as lucky in close games and Nowitzki cools off a bit from his MVP season, the Mavs are likely to make it up by replacing the production of George and Buckner with better players and improvements from the still-developing trio of Howard, Harris and Diop.

The questions will begin anew in the postseason, but in a way this is a sign of what a raging success the Mavs have become -- anything short of a championship is now equated with failure. After the disappointments of the past two springs they seem to be the forgotten contender, but I have them as the third-best team in basketball right now and wouldn't be the least bit shocked if they finally got over the hump this June.

Prediction: 58-24, 3rd in Southwest, 3rd in West (5th seed for playoffs)

[jthig32]

Hollinger's got the Rockets winning the West and the best record in the NBA, btw.

I agree with a lot of this article, but I'll believe the Rockets putting together that kind of season when I see it.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Wow he thinks a lot higher of Fazekas than Bass. Says Fazekas will be a rebounder and scorer at the Pro level.

[Pirate]

Thanks for posting it, but that article was pure junk. Hollinger at his worst, where numbers outweigh common sense and minor number aberrations are touted as major issues.

[jcb6386]

How he has the Rockets finishing above the Spurs, Mavs AND Suns just blows my mind. I'll believe it when I see it...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jthig32

But let's get back to that decision to start George in Game 1, because it reflects an oddity in Dallas' approach that really cost the Mavs in the Golden State series -- the team's habit of genuflecting toward veteran role players.
After the loss to Miami in 2006, somehow the Mavs got it in their head that what they needed was more crumbling 30-something types around their stars. So they went out and picked up George, Greg Buckner and Austin Croshere.

The Mavs doled out 3,382 minutes -- or about 40 minutes a game -- to that trio, and were rewarded with a combined player efficiency ratio (PER) of 9.10. While George and Buckner had some defensive value, it's not much of an exaggeration to say Dallas could have pulled three guys out of the D-League and done just as well.
But these weren't D-League pickups or 10-day contracts -- the Mavs gave up real assets to get these guys. Dallas traded a talented shooting guard in Marquis Daniels to acquire Croshere, and used all of its free-agent dough on Buckner and George.

Worse yet, I sense the Mavs felt they succeeded because of those players, when actually they succeeded in spite of them. So when the going got tough against Golden State, the Mavs instinctively turned to those players instead of turning away -- especially to George and Buckner. Buckner played 44 playoff minutes and scored one measly point, while George saw nearly 20 minutes a night and shot 20 percent for the series with more turnovers than baskets.

OUCH....OUCH.....OUCH....OUCH!! OUCH....

[chumdawg]

So...he's saying we have a chance!

[Usually Lurkin]

hmm. I hadn't thought along those lines, re: the loss to GS. But all that ink spent on George and Buckner, but not to discuss the absence of a center? I understand Holli's exploring the "old fogies" angle, but playing without a center that series is an important part of evaluating what happened to look forward to next season.

And George did great early in the season, prior to the injuries. He hit open shots earlier in the season that he didn't make as the season ended (and frankly few did) . That might be due to George being injured, or it might be (as Lakers fans would say) due to George being George. First time I've heard it blamed on age, and I don't buy it. And they picked up Buckner not because he's old, but because he was supposed to do then what Hassell is supposed to do now. And wasn't Buckner supposed to do what Griffin (who is even older) was doing? They seem to be getting younger in that progression. Croshere came on board in replacement of KVH, who is the same age.

Some folks are worried about the Mavs getting older, but they are not out of their prime as a team, so what's the big deal for this year? For 5 years from now, that might be a problem. But not now. They've replaced bench youth (like Daniels - "promising" is different than "contributing) with some some bench age. Which makes sense, because they are still looking for floor leadership.


edit:
In conclusion, Steve-freakin' Kerr. That's what they need, a Steve freakin' Kerr. Who cares how old someone is. If he can step in at sometime in the game and hit a few jumpers that say, "Quit double-teaming down low," then he's what the mavs need.

[Pirate]

"They outscored their opponents by 7.2 points per game, which is impressive, but normally teams who do that win 63.5 games, not 67. Dallas won more than its share ...."

He's been riding his "prediction" that the Mavs were "overrated" yet his stats still showed them as a 64-win team and far better than GS. That is still a major upset, not some sort of self-validation.

He points out the drop in George's game, without accounting for the injury factor. The same could be true of the whole team. He notes their averages fell off at the end of the season - without noting that some of that was by choice, and some of it might also have been due to injury.

He tells us JJB should be a major factor because his D-league numbers were impressive. D-league!?!

Fazekas he rated as one of the top players in the draft with his weird draft-predictor, so he tells us he should become a factor while Bass should be a dog. But to anyone who watched, in SL Bass appeared to be ten times the player that Fazekas was.

And that's the problem with the whole approach he takes. Numbers, without context.

Put down the calculator and watch the damn games, John. You're becoming a slave to the numbers and turning into a moron as a result.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Pirate

"They outscored their opponents by 7.2 points per game, which is impressive, but normally teams who do that win 63.5 games, not 67. Dallas won more than its share ...."

He's been riding his "prediction" that the Mavs were "overrated" yet his stats still showed them as a 64-win team and far better than GS. That is still a major upset, not some sort of self-validation.

He points out the drop in George's game, without accounting for the injury factor. The same could be true of the whole team. He notes their averages fell off at the end of the season - without noting that some of that was by choice, and some of it might also have been due to injury.

He tells us JJB should be a major factor because his D-league numbers were impressive. D-league!?!

Fazekas he rated as one of the top players in the draft with his weird draft-predictor, so he tells us he should become a factor while Bass should be a dog. But to anyone who watched, in SL Bass appeared to be ten times the player that Fazekas was.

And that's the problem with the whole approach he takes. Numbers, without context.

Put down the calculator and watch the damn games, John. You're becoming a slave to the numbers and turning into a moron as a result.

Man, he's been pretty spot on for several years. I dunno about all the hate towards him.

I don't think he said anything about the Golden State series not being a major upset. The fact is, we weren't playing that well headed into the playoffs. And he points that out. Nothing wrong there.

He has us as the third best team in basketball, I'm not understanding all the hate on his analysis.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by jthig32

He has us as the third best team in basketball, I'm not understanding all the hate on his analysis.

where your team ends up isn't all that an analysis is. I think we all agree that the mavs were not playing so well at the end of regulation last year. We've even had a thread or two about why. But if Hollinger ignored some stuff you think is important, or over-emphasized some stuff you think is not, then let us know.

As far as the ranking, anyone with half a brain knows that the "Mavs are number 1, baby!!" Only a complete moron would rank them otherwise. But that's a different conversation.

[MavsX]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[robo98564]

Houston Rockets: Consistently the most overrated team every year... Dont we hear every year how much better they are going to be, and aren't they never better??? I thought so

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Man, he's been pretty spot on for several years. I dunno about all the hate towards him.

I don't think he said anything about the Golden State series not being a major upset. The fact is, we weren't playing that well headed into the playoffs. And he points that out. Nothing wrong there.

He has us as the third best team in basketball, I'm not understanding all the hate on his analysis.

Hate? Maybe "disappointment" is a better term. He's morphed into something different and unstomachable in the last year. (If he did this stuff before, I never noticed, and would have been as derisive had I known.)

I'll give you two items that change the nature of his work for me:

1. He has become the poster boy for definitive predictive analysis, rather than merely quantifying results. That's a huge change in what he is offering.

As he does so, his methodology finds a way to erase past aberrations in the normal approaches (while creating new aberrations of his own). ANY STOCK MARKET INVESTOR CAN TELL YOU HOW FLAWED THAT METHODOLOGY IS.

The draft predictor was an amazingly outrageous example. He went in and found all the players who were drafted too low, and then created a grid that - had it been followed - would have moved them higher in the draft. And then he touts that his grid PREDICTS which otherwise overlooked players will succeed.

Well no, it doesn't. It merely gives a shift to past rankings, but it tells us nothing about future ones. Just like gurus who come up with sure-fire tips to beat the market, based on their system using pre-played market results. When they fail going forward, they tweak the formula, fail again and tweak again, and so on so that they always seem to have gotten it right. In fact, all they got right was an ability to create a formiula on what already happened after the fact, not on what will happen. That's what Hollinger is now doing, and for any stat guy it is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

2. Just as outrageous is a lack of acknowledging any "margin of error" when he uses his analyses as some sort of absolute predictor.

For example, when he says a team that wins by an average of 7.2 points should win X games, it should say "X within a range of +/- so many games." He doesn't admit that such a range exists, and that's intellectual dishonesty.

In other words, what he now says is "Every time a team averages a winning margin of 7.2, they will win 63.5 games. Anything outside that is a fluke." And that's just wrong. As long as it falls within the margin of error (and who knows, it could be as hign as 4-5 games either way), there is nothing fluky going on. It's just the nature of competitive results.

The result is that he acts like "data X points to conclusion Y" are set in stone predictors, when they are more of a guideline. I think he knows better - which means he is being intentionally deceptive, making him a snake oil salesman and a fraud. If not, he's just a moron. I'm not sure which is worse, but either way it's very disillusioning to lose a guy good with numbers to the dumper.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

hmm. I hadn't thought along those lines, re: the loss to GS. But all that ink spent on George and Buckner, but not to discuss the absence of a center? I understand Holli's exploring the "old fogies" angle, but playing without a center that series is an important part of evaluating what happened to look forward to next season.

And George did great early in the season, prior to the injuries. He hit open shots earlier in the season that he didn't make as the season ended (and frankly few did) . That might be due to George being injured, or it might be (as Lakers fans would say) due to George being George. First time I've heard it blamed on age, and I don't buy it. And they picked up Buckner not because he's old, but because he was supposed to do then what Hassell is supposed to do now. And wasn't Buckner supposed to do what Griffin (who is even older) was doing? They seem to be getting younger in that progression. Croshere came on board in replacement of KVH, who is the same age.

Some folks are worried about the Mavs getting older, but they are not out of their prime as a team, so what's the big deal for this year? For 5 years from now, that might be a problem. But not now. They've replaced bench youth (like Daniels - "promising" is different than "contributing) with some some bench age. Which makes sense, because they are still looking for floor leadership.


edit:
In conclusion, Steve-freakin' Kerr. That's what they need, a Steve freakin' Kerr. Who cares how old someone is. If he can step in at sometime in the game and hit a few jumpers that say, "Quit double-teaming down low," then he's what the mavs need.

george never did anything great as a mav. Hes a bum

[ddh33]

I don't mind Hollinger or his stuff. The guy is right way more than he's wrong.

I guess if I had to nitpick on one thing it would be his trust in his numbers. But, of course, he's a statistician. He's supposed to trust those numbers. Kind of hard to be too hard on him.

And it's my understanding that his predictions are based solely on numbers. I suspect that he formulated his idea of the Rockets having the best record by examining his PER and all of that stuff. What his numbers can't tell you, and what Hollinger understands, is that those numbers don't account for injuries, choking, or all of those things. And whether you like it or not, Yao Ming, Tracy McGrady, Steve Francis, Luis Scola, and all of those other guys have some ability.

Ultimately, you play the games to find everything out. I don't have a problem with someone expressing an opinion and backing it up with some kind of evidence. I don't happen to agree with his prediction, but I understand it.

Actually, if I was picking, I would say that Houston ends up third in a tight race in the SW behind your Mavs and Spurs.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Pirate

2. Just as outrageous is a lack of acknowledging any "margin of error" when he uses his analyses as some sort of absolute predictor.

For example, when he says a team that wins by an average of 7.2 points should win X games, it should say "X within a range of +/- so many games." He doesn't admit that such a range exists, and that's intellectual dishonesty.

In other words, what he now says is "Every time a team averages a winning margin of 7.2, they will win 63.5 games. Anything outside that is a fluke." And that's just wrong. As long as it falls within the margin of error (and who knows, it could be as hign as 4-5 games either way), there is nothing fluky going on. It's just the nature of competitive results.

I think you are misinterpreting Hollinger's argument, in this regard. What he is trying to tell you is that, to use this example, a margin of 7.2 points will give you 63.5 wins from 82 if you run the experiment over a large number of trials. Of course there is a range of results. What he is trying to do is to help make sense of that range. As he has said time and time again, he's not trying to tell you how many games a team has won, or even will win; for that you can simply read the standings. He's trying to dig deeper with his analysis.

And for what it's worth, that method of analysis is HIGHLY respected in the sports stats community. Hollinger didn't come up with it. Yeah, he came up with his own little rating system by adding soem tweaks to it. But the core analysis predates him, and it has proven reliable many times over.

Now, to me there isn't much of a difference between 63 or 64 wins and 67. But...you know how some folks around these parts make a really big deal about the sacred "67."

[nowhereman]

it's going to be a long year.

[Pirate]

Chumdawg, if he was actually saying that, I would have no problem. But he is NOT saying what you are saying he is.

Instead, he has said from the get-go that 7.2 winning margin equals 63.5 wins, and anything outside of that is some sort of fluke. You'll even see him make note of that as a FACT (that the Mavs W/L results were somehow flukey), and at the same time fail to point out how 64 wins (the middle of the range) would have still been an amazingly dominant year. That in fact wasn't only what he said, but it was the BASIS for many of his articles last season. Unfortunately, nowhere has he EVER admitted that there is a range or a margin of error when using average final point spread as a wins predictor.

As you note, the actual fact is that running the numbers over and over at best only gives you a RANGE of results. But in Hollinger's world (at least, the one he puts into print), 7.2+ always should equal exactly 63.5w, and if he doesn't really believe that (which you opine to be the case) then the articles were dishonest. From what I've seen, he seems to be going to that same sort of less-than-honest approach in all his work (probably so as to get more attention rather than more accuracy), which is why I am no longer impressed. He's sold out.

[mavsgirl56]

Who the hell cares what that idiot Hollinger says?

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by nowhereman

it's going to be a long year.

It very may well be. I think we should at least prepare ourselves for the possibility.

(And by long year, of course, we mean compared to 67 wins last season)

[Hitman]

Hollinger was right on the Spurs all last season, when everyone on this board was hooting and hollering for saying that the Spurs were better than the Mavs and the Suns because of point differential.

It turns out he was right. No analyst is perfect, but as they go, I would usually put my money with Hollinger.

[dude1394]

Nice to see him hammer Avery.... Here's another one that's avery related imo.
We saw avery push them all year long and they weren't ready for the playoffs, just were not ready.

I think it was Phil Jackson that said "fatigue makes cowards of us all". He may not have coined it but he's right on. Mental and Physical fatigue seemed to set in.

You don't get any more whiffs AJ.

One of the early themes around here, or at least one media members are asking players, is if they took the regular season to seriously last season -- and mainly if that contributed to the burn-out at the end.

To extent the players would agree that they grinded so hard that it might have taken a toll at the end of the year. So, Jerry Stackhouse was asked if the team can have more fun with this season rather than being so focused on the No. 1 seed:

"That's a good way to look at it," Stack said. "I'm going to party like hell this year."

Relax, he was joking around, but the point was taken that the team is going to try to see the bigger picture this season. Not that they ever want to lose a game, but the approach will alter a bit in that more focus will be put on maintaining a mental and physical edge and preparing for their bodies for the playoffs, rather than simply being determined to grab the No. 1 seed at the expense of flaming out too soon.

-- Jeff

[alby]

AJ and Dallas choked.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by alby

AJ and Dallas choked.

congratulations. Is this the 30th time you've said that. What prize do you get at 30?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Hollinger was right on the Spurs all last season, when everyone on this board was hooting and hollering for saying that the Spurs were better than the Mavs and the Suns because of point differential.

It turns out he was right. No analyst is perfect, but as they go, I would usually put my money with Hollinger.

The Spurs never beat the Mavs to get that ring... Was that covered in his analysis?

[alby]

The city of Dallas will hold the football and basketball championship titles at the same time, book it.

[bernardos70]

That's too bad for the Cowboys!

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by alby

The city if Dallas will hold the football and basketball championship title at the same time, book it.

Well I guess if the Heat beat a Western conference team, anything is possible. Even the miracle that would be the Cowboys beating whatever team comes ouf ot the AFC.

[Dortmund]

Who cares.. we are obviously better in the underdog role anyway.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Hollinger was right on the Spurs all last season, when everyone on this board was hooting and hollering for saying that the Spurs were better than the Mavs and the Suns because of point differential.

It turns out he was right. No analyst is perfect, but as they go, I would usually put my money with Hollinger.

His same point differential predictions had the Mavs ranked considerably ahead of Golden State. So was he more right than everyone else about the Spurs, or as wrong as everybody else about the Mavs?

[alby]

I want Dirk to get the Allstar MVP, NBA MVP, and NBA Finals MVP this year. This team is capable of granting my wish. Just go out and execute.

[alby]

The Cowboys are right behind the Pats and Colts--anything can happen.