So...Hollinger.. - Page 4 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

mkat · 04-20-2010, 08:23 PM

though i don't particularly care what Hollinger says, I'd really like him to explain how the Spurs win 4 games in this series. Not why the Mavs won't win, but what advantages the Spurs have over the Mavs. Because as I see it, the Hack-A-Damp routine showed that Popp knew he was outclassed, and that happened in game 1.

xrobx · 04-20-2010, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkat

though i don't particularly care what Hollinger says, I'd really like him to explain how the Spurs win 4 games in this series. Not why the Mavs won't win, but what advantages the Spurs have over the Mavs. Because as I see it, the Hack-A-Damp routine showed that Popp knew he was outclassed, and that happened in game 1.

because they ran up the score on inferior teams all year long, therefore they're better than the mavs

Mavericks Rockets Fan · 04-20-2010, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xrobx

because they ran up the score on inferior teams all year long, therefore they're better than the mavs

This. They've been atrocious against the good teams in the West (they were 9-17 against the Western Conf. Playoff teams in the regular season). The only reason they are up in Hollinger's ranking is their higher MOV from beating up on sorry teams. News flash: you don't get to play Clippers, T-Wolves, and Warriors in the playoffs...

chumdawg · 04-20-2010, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavericks Rockets Fan

News flash: you don't get to play Clippers, T-Wolves, and Warriors in the playoffs...

Yeah, well, neither do we. Best to keep that in mind. The Spurs aren't fodder.

Mavericks Rockets Fan · 04-21-2010, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Yeah, well, neither do we. Best to keep that in mind. The Spurs aren't fodder.

When did I say they were fodder? All I said is that the #2 rank they have in Hollinger's ranking is heavily inflated by blowout victories over crappy teams. They haven't been that good against the Western Conf. playoff teams and don't deserve to be considered a favourite against Dallas...

rmacomic · 04-21-2010, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

The Spurs aren't fodder.

Yeah, well, neither are we.

chumdawg · 04-21-2010, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmacomic

Yeah, well, neither are we.

Of course not. What are you looking at, seven games?

Windmill360 · 04-21-2010, 02:29 AM

Wrong thread.

nowhereman · 04-21-2010, 02:36 AM

What's the team's respective MOV's against >.500 teams? Because Dallas was 27-18 (the best record in the West) versus SA's 20-26 (the worst amongst western playoffs teams). What's their respective MOV's outside of B2B's? What's their respective MOVs at home and on the road against other playoff teams?

If MOV is such an amazing predictive stat, why is it so recklessly underdeveloped in the public domain?

chumdawg · 04-21-2010, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nowhereman

What's the team's respective MOV's against >.500 teams? Because Dallas was 27-18 (the best record in the West) versus SA's 20-26 (the worst amongst western playoffs teams). What's their respective MOV's outside of B2B's? What's their respective MOVs at home and on the road against other playoff teams?

If MOV is such an amazing predictive stat, why is it so recklessly underdeveloped in the public domain?

Sounds like you are on to something.

But you are going to be getting into some even smaller sample sizes than the 82 games, which is thought by many to be too small itself.

The best solution might be to cap wins (and maybe even losses) at some margin, so as to eliminate the effect of blowout games.

xrobx · 04-21-2010, 10:14 AM

the best solution is to play the two teams against each other in a best of 7 series and see who wins

thereaper · 04-21-2010, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xrobx

the best solution is to play the two teams against each other in a best of 7 series and see who wins

On a neutral site.

Murphy3 · 04-21-2010, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thereaper

On a neutral site.

Outdoors.

Henry_VIII · 04-21-2010, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Outdoors.

On ice.

Underdog · 04-21-2010, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henry_VIII

On ice.

Uphill, both ways...

Nowitzki4President · 04-21-2010, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henry_VIII

On ice.

Whilst Naked.

chumdawg · 04-21-2010, 11:10 PM

Just like Hollinger said.

chumdawg · 04-22-2010, 12:50 AM

According to form, it would seem.

Dirkadirkastan · 04-22-2010, 12:52 AM

Yes, now the Mavs have a much better shot at winning this series with a negative margin of victory.

chumdawg · 04-25-2010, 10:57 PM

Tick-tock, tick-tock.

xrobx · 04-25-2010, 10:59 PM

i wish a mod could just delete this thread

purplefrog · 04-26-2010, 12:07 AM

Seems to me that according to Hollinger theory the Spurs were "lucky" to win the past two games since the MOV was less than five in both cases. Maybe its time to embrace the Hollinger way of thinking???

chumdawg · 04-26-2010, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Seems to me that according to Hollinger theory the Spurs were "lucky" to win the past two games since the MOV was less than five in both cases. Maybe its time to embrace the Hollinger way of thinking???

Ummm, no. Hollinger had the Spurs as better than us.

purplefrog · 04-26-2010, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Ummm, no. Hollinger had the Spurs as better than us.

I thought Hollinger said any win under 5 points was nothing more than a flip of the coin? Spurs won one game by 4 and one by 3.. Just plain luck right?

Zki41 · 04-26-2010, 02:25 AM

What pisses me off the most is that Hollinger predicted Spurs in 6 ....

fluid.forty.one · 04-30-2010, 12:53 AM

*facepalm*

Windmill360 · 04-30-2010, 12:54 AM

so next year we know what to do...

Mavericks Rockets Fan · 04-30-2010, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Windmill360

so next year we know what to do...

play on a neutral court?

Rick41 · 04-30-2010, 01:04 AM

Hollinger can still kiss my ass.

LonghornDub · 04-30-2010, 01:06 AM

Hollinger also had Hawks in 5. So, yeah.

Dirkadirkastan · 04-30-2010, 01:07 AM

Flawed logic with correct predictions is still flawed logic.

aurelino9 · 05-01-2010, 12:24 PM

All hail Dr. Hollinger.

Murphy3 · 05-01-2010, 12:28 PM

It really doesn't matter that Hollinger predicted the series. His use of statistics is still extremely flawed which is what the basis of my argument is.. You cannot use statistics in the manner in which he did to analyze a team based upon data that is prior to a drastic change in personnel.

Benny · 05-01-2010, 03:01 PM

After game 6, regarding the Mavs, Hollinger wrote on Twitter "Few fanbases more willingly shoot the messenger"

At that point, I finally, too, realized he's got something against the Mavs, apparently. He can messenger my ass.

I'm just wondering what it'd actually feel like, if the Mavs really were to win a championship some day... Mr. Hollinger would probably put a gun to his head that moment, because that Playoffs he'd - of course!!! - have predicted us a first-round exit, too.

Usually Lurkin · 05-01-2010, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

It really doesn't matter that Hollinger predicted the series. His use of statistics is still extremely flawed which is what the basis of my argument is.. You cannot use statistics in the manner in which he did to analyze a team based upon data that is prior to a drastic change in personnel.

Except he also argued that the change wasn't that drastic. Different people, same lack of production. Looking at Caron's playoff performance, it's hard to argue that Josh Howard would have given us less.

LonghornDub · 05-01-2010, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Except he also argued that the change wasn't that drastic. Different people, same lack of production. Looking at Caron's playoff performance, it's hard to argue that Josh Howard would have given us less.

It's actually very easy to argue that Howard would have given us less. The only reason there's even debate whatsoever is because it was against the Spurs, who are the one team Howard tended to shine against. But compare Caron's numbers in this series to Howard's against Denver or NO and it's not even close. Caron scored 60 points in the last two games of this series--I'm not sure Howard scored 60 points total against Denver or NO.

Usually Lurkin · 05-01-2010, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

It's actually very easy to argue that Howard would have given us less. The only reason there's even debate whatsoever is because it was against the Spurs, who are the one team Howard tended to shine against. But compare Caron's numbers in this series to Howard's against Denver or NO and it's not even close. Caron scored 60 points in the last two games of this series--I'm not sure Howard scored 60 points total against Denver or NO.

wow, really? Those things are pretty easy to check.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/...PKB4?year=2008.

Here's Howard's performances in the playoffs for the past few years:

against Denver, Howard scored: 14, 21, 14, 0, 15 = 64
San Antonio, Howard scored: 17, 28, 17, 7, 25 = 94
New Orleans: 12, 6, 18, 10, 17 = 63
Golden State: 20, 23, 22, 20, 22, 21 = 128

Caron was: 25, 35, 17, 2, 17, 22 = 118

Caron did a bit better (thank you 35 points in the game 5 win!), but you are going to have a hard time arguing that Caron played so much better that he changed the ending of Dallas's season.

chumdawg · 05-01-2010, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Except he also argued that the change wasn't that drastic.

Yeah, that's the thing that I've been tossing around in my head. Of course it *seems* drastic, when you trade out a starter or two, but trading out doesn't necessarily mean movement, in one direction or the other.

I mean, our team is so highly driven by Dirk. If you were to assess percentages of "impact by position," what does Dirk get, around a 50? I don't know. But I do figure that it's a whole lot.

LDub makes a great point in saying that playoff games that are decided by a handful of points can't have been predicted--at least with any reasonable measure of certainty. But the impression still remains that Hollinger had this one right...which is to say that if we were a better team we would have done a better job of showing it.

Usually Lurkin · 05-01-2010, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Yeah, that's the thing that I've been tossing around in my head. Of course it *seems* drastic, when you trade out a starter or two, but trading out doesn't necessarily mean movement, in one direction or the other.

Dallas still needs a second star. Without fixing that, it's hard to say that any upgrade (even 10 points in a playoff game) is significant or meaningful.

Quote:

LDub makes a great point in saying that playoff games that are decided by a handful of points can't have been predicted--at least with any reasonable measure of certainty. .

ok, but perhaps whether Spurs or Mavs win more of those can be (and I don't see where LonghornDub said that).

chumdawg · 05-01-2010, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Dallas still needs a second star. Without fixing that, it's hard to say that any upgrade (even 10 points in a playoff game) is significant or meaningful.

You ain't never lied. We need that in a big way.

Quote:

ok, but perhaps whether Spurs or Mavs win more of those can be (and I don't see where LonghornDub said that).

I'll let him speak for himself, but I'm under the impression that he either feels that Mavs were the favorites in this series or that he feels that the MOV stats were meaningless. Me, I thought the MOV stats indicated that the Mavs were the underdog. That's where he and I differ.