3/3/10 Minny @ Dallas 7:30 CST

[LSMF]

Originally Posted by Windmill360

What's happened to Haywood?

Personally, I feel that we should allow Haywood to post up more. We've wanted a center with a few post moves for quite some time now, and he does have a nice jump hook. I'm sure if we allow him to post up more and continue to find him when he's open that he'll be even more motivated to rebound and defend. I also would like to see some Kidd alley oops to Wood.

[badfish22]

Originally Posted by BGMaverick9

Hollins was a hustle/energy guy off the bench for us when he was here...that's not shocking news.

He wasn't a 5 offensive rebounds type of player though.

But Haywood just had a couple poor games. He will be back.

[BGMaverick9]

Energy and hustle lead to opportunities, plain and simple.
"Poor games"...I don't think so.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

tonight's the type of game that will mess with Hollinger.

While we squeeze by Minny...

Nuggs up by 40 in the 4th vs. Thunder
Hawks win by 19 vs. 6ers
Celtics win by 24 vs. Bobcats
Magic win by 27 vs. Warriors
Cavs win by 19 vs. Nets

Knicks by 24 over Pistons (this doesn't count).

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. This is *exactly* Hollinger's point. It ain't going to mess with him. It's going to add fuel to his fire.

[CadBane]

Hollinger just got wood with tonight's boxscores.

[mavspwnage]

LOL

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by mavspwnage

"Look what the cold weather up there did to his penis!"

Weird.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. This is *exactly* Hollinger's point. It ain't going to mess with him. It's going to add fuel to his fire.

He's burning the wrong fire, though. The Mavs performance tonight will encourage him to continue to ignore things like Kidd and Damp being out.

[rabbitproof]

Chum,
If you'll note, I posted pregame (half jokingly) I hoped we'd only win by 1.

I think clutchness matters and I think Hollinger underrates it. We probably slid further down his rankings after tonight. In fact, I wouldn't mind if we slid into the high 20s so long as we climb/maintain in the standings and beat the Lakers, Nuggets, Cavs, etc.

I derive little joy or knowledge from blowing out the minor leaguers.

[rabbitproof]

Al Jefferson was also out for Minny but that's not the point for Hollinger. It's about margin of victory being something significant (the most significant to him?).

[rabbitproof]

Man, I've become Hollinger-obsessed. Something to do with bad stat work and needing respect for a 9 game winning streak after a humongo trade, motherfackers!!

Get in line, John!

EDIT:

Case in point: we're now below the Heat and the Bucks! Wahahahahaha...

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings

Okay, super-Hollinger-obsessed.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

I derive little joy or knowledge from blowing out the minor leaguers.

You can derive whatever you want from blowing out the minor leaguers, but over the course of decades worth of history, great teams make a practice of doing it. What most of you are missing is that pythags are NOT Hollinger's own creation. They are the creation of very educated (and often very well paid and well placed) stats guys, and much more critically, it is not an ad hoc predictive model but rather a post hoc analytic model based on huge samples of past work.

Hollnger may interpret the model wrong sometimes, as I believe he has on this occasion, but that does NOT make the model any less sound. As I said, you did nothing but support his argument when you pointed out what the big boys were doing to their foes tonight.

[Dirkadirkastan]

It's impossible to play efficiently on both defense and offense, and still let your opponent hang around on the scoreboard. So I would certainly prefer the Mavs blow out some teams because that would indicate they played a more "complete" game. But I won't concede they're the 14th best team in the league just because they haven't yet.

[rabbitproof]

I think a lot of it is circumstantial that goes amiss when you draw big conclusions on a small sample size (<10 games). The B2Bs, the tough opponents, the missing key rotation players.

There is using data to interpret what has happened (J-Ho has done okay here) and there is using data to predict (J-Ho has failed here IMO).

[Skywalker]

Originally Posted by tcat075

Next year?

Am I not allowed to dream?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

I think a lot of it is circumstantial that goes amiss when you draw big conclusions on a small sample size (<10 games). .

Good points. Hollinger is very wrong in 2 ways in relation to this. He knows his "objective" model shouldn't apply to the Mavs and he uses it anyway, and he selects data for qualitative interpretation that is biased against the mavs.

Generally, you use lots of data to account for variation when you build big, fat, robust statistical models. Over a set of many, many cases, you can call things that aren't really random (like losing games because of injury, suspension, trades or hangovers) random because the model doesn't include them as a variables, and these things seem to help as often as hurt a team. But all those things that affect wins and losses and MOV but aren't in the model end up creating predictive error. When you make lots of predictions for lots of teams using the model, you can ignore those not-really-random, random factors and still reduce your average error by (as chum points out) including even more data that don't include those factors. Across lots of predictions for lots of teams, this is a great way to reduce that average error.

Talking about one team can be very different, though, than making lots of predictions across lots of teams. If you don't know of "random" stuff going on with a team and you use your model to predict it's future, then you are doing what your model is designed to do. Any not-really-random random stuff would really be unpredictable. The amount of your error in that specific case is just as likely to be above average as below. But if you know there is a lot going on with some team that's not accounted for by the model, and you use the model anyway, then you are pretty much assuring that your error will be greater than average.

Not only is there is a lot going on with the Mavs that Hollinger's model doesn't account for - things like a big trade, things like veteran decisions to coast until post-all-star, things like injuries, but he selectively ignores those things when he makes interpretations. When he comments on stuff outside the model, he comments on things like how one win came against an injury depleted Heat, suggesting that they are worse than even his model suggests. He doesn't comment on those not-really-random random factors that might be hurting the Mavs standing in his model, that would suggest that they are better than his model suggests.

His reliance on the model in ignorance of factors that he knows lie outside the model is an error. Selecting factors for interpretation as he does is a bias.