Behold, the idiocy that is John Hollinger - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

joemoeschmoe · 03-02-2010, 12:31 PM

I really don't think he has actually watched a single game since the trade.

He quotes statistics that are primarily from before the trade. Who cares what our offensive and defensive efficiencies are for the entire season?

He says that our scoring margin since the trade isn't impressive, but ignores the facts that a few of those victories were really larger than the final score (especially vs Indiana) and that most of the victories came against very good teams.

And we're all aware of his mistaken assumption that close games are decided purely by luck. We had "freakishly good fortune" during our games decided by 5 pts or less. It couldn't be because we have a veteran team with clutch players.

Idiot.

Quote:

Behold, everyone, our new Western contender … but you might not want to look too closely.

With their eighth straight win Monday -- a streak that includes seven victories over playoff contenders -- the Dallas Mavericks eased past the Denver Nuggets into the No. 2 spot in the Western Conference. And the streak might not end any time soon. The Mavericks' next seven games look eminently winnable (home against Minnesota, Sacramento, New Jersey, New York and Chicago; at Chicago and Minnesota), which could have them riding a 15-game win streak when Boston visits March 20. Things will get significantly more difficult from there, but if Dallas takes care of business against the doormats, it should hang on to its second seed in the West.

Dallas' recent run coincides with a trade for Caron Butler and Brendan Haywood, leading one to wonder whether the Mavs have recast themselves as legitimate threats to win the conference.

Look a little deeper, however, and the Mavs' résumé isn't nearly as impressive. They have gone 8-1 since their trade with Washington on Feb. 13, but they have outscored their opposition by only 5.3 points per game during that time. In other words, during their best stretch of the season, they still haven't matched the scoring margin of elite teams such as the Cavs (plus-7.3), Lakers (plus-6.4) and Magic (plus-5.8), and they barely exceed the marks of the Celtics, Hawks, Nuggets, Jazz and Spurs.

The Mavs' winning streak has come against some difficult opposition, but some easy matchups -- home games against Indiana and a Dwyane Wade-less Miami team, for instance -- have produced close shaves. In fact, Dallas hasn't won a game by more than 10 points since Jan. 24.

Which takes us to the No. 1 item in my inbox at the moment: How do the Mavericks, who have the second-best record in the West and fourth-best in the league, rank a measly 12th in the Power Rankings?

Let's break down Dallas' body of work. Despite its impressive win-loss record, it has the league's 12th-best scoring margin at plus-2.25 points per game. Normally, a team with that margin would be 36-25; the Mavs are 40-21 thanks to freakishly good fortune in close games. (They're 15-5 in contests decided by five points or fewer.)

Dallas gets a boost in the daily Power Rankings from its schedule, which has been more difficult than league average, and its home-road differential (29 home games, 32 on the road) -- two factors that will even out in a hurry during the next seven games.

However, the other component factoring into the rankings is recent play. And in the most recent 25 percent of their schedule, the Mavs -- even with the win streak -- have an average scoring margin barely above par at plus-0.13.

That stretch includes a 36-point loss to Denver that could be relabeled as a loss to the schedule, as it came on the back end of a ridiculously unfair back-to-back after a game in Golden State. (I often wonder whether the NBA's schedule makers ever travel west of the Mississippi. Did they think that because Colorado was only two states away, it wouldn't be a long flight?)

But if you take the Denver debacle off the Mavericks' résumé, it still doesn't improve much. Dallas would have the league's 11th-best scoring margin on the season instead of the 12th, and its margin of victory in the past quarter of its schedule would be a still-unimpressive plus-2.13. Overall, the Mavs would be just 10th in the Power Rankings and still well behind the top nine teams. And, of course, this would be after giving them a major benefit of the doubt: They're not the only team to be victimized by unfortunate schedule arrangements.

Dig deeper, and still, nothing about the Mavs screams "contender." They rank 10th in offensive efficiency and 12th in defensive efficiency. Their offense is predicated on the lowest-percentage shot in the game, the long 2, and three Mavs (Dirk Nowitzki, Jason Terry and Butler) are among the league's leading practitioners of the shot. Sure, that trio converts from midrange more often than most, but it's still a difficult way to build a high-powered offense.

Thus, if the Mavs are to be legit, they will have to improve on defense. That's where the additions of Haywood and, to a lesser extent, DeShawn Stevenson, could help. But even if those two vault the Mavs all the way into the league's top five in defensive efficiency -- an unlikely occurrence -- they still would be on an even footing with only the West's other second-tier teams.

As a result, we're left to deal with one of the season's great paradoxes. With 40 wins in the bank and a favorable remaining schedule, Dallas is likely to attain the second seed in the West. Yet it has the statistical profile of a much lower contender, and even its post-trade win streak hasn't changed that outlook significantly.

I don't want to completely dismiss the Mavs' prospects because they could land home-court advantage for two playoff rounds, and I'd like to see them play a few more games with their new acquisitions. But despite the recent win streak, my outlook on Dallas really hasn't changed much. Until further notice, it's a pretty good team … but one that's unlikely to topple any of the three fantastic ones it may have to get past in the Western Conference playoffs.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...PERDiem-100302

Usually Lurkin · 03-02-2010, 12:43 PM

Quote:

The Mavs' winning streak has come against some difficult opposition, but some easy matchups -- home games against Indiana and a Dwyane Wade-less Miami team, for instance -- have produced close shaves. In fact, Dallas hasn't won a game by more than 10 points since Jan. 24.
...

Despite its impressive win-loss record, it has the league's 12th-best scoring margin at plus-2.25 points per game. Normally, a team with that margin would be 36-25; the Mavs are 40-21 thanks to freakishly good fortune in close games. (They're 15-5 in contests decided by five points or fewer.)
...

Dallas gets a boost in the daily Power Rankings from its schedule, which has been more difficult than league average, and its home-road differential (29 home games, 32 on the road) -- two factors that will even out in a hurry during the next seven games.

If you are going to discount a win against Miami because Wade wasn't there, shouldn't you give extra weight to wins without Butler?

how freakish does something have to be before you consider ruling out the null hypothesis?

. . . If their home/away "boost" in the daily Rankings is going to be adjusted in the upcoming easy schedule, then wouldn't you expect the output measure "anchors" (like scoring differential) to get "evened out" as well? If they don't, wouldn't that suggest that the "boost" shouldn't be in the formula?

spreedom · 03-02-2010, 12:46 PM

Hollinger is borderline mentally handicapped if you ask me.

Nowitzki4President · 03-02-2010, 12:46 PM

Whys he such a hater?

EricaLubarsky · 03-02-2010, 12:53 PM

Its about the wins, not about the margin. Oklahoma and San Antonio both have better margins than we have, but
a) its about the wins, stupid and
b) we sorta killed ourselves by winning all those clutch 1-pt games.

Hollinger can be alright when he looks at the stats to make opinions but when he comes in with an opinion and fishes for stats to support himself he shows himself to be an idiot. Win margin? Honestly? He only looks at year-long stats, instead of the much more impressive set of stats since the trade. We were pretty mediocre for the first 52 games in the season and he really thinks the stats for the entire 61 really tell us about the team we have now (that we've had for 9 games)???

Bookit · 03-02-2010, 01:02 PM

Look a little deeper, however, and the Mavs' résumé isn't nearly as impressive. They have gone 8-1 since their trade with Washington on Feb. 13, but they have outscored their opposition by only 5.3 points per game during that time. In other words, during their best stretch of the season, they still haven't matched the scoring margin of elite teams such as the Cavs (plus-7.3), Lakers (plus-6.4) and Magic (plus-5.8), and they barely exceed the marks of the Celtics, Hawks, Nuggets, Jazz and Spurs.

Ok, he has to be paid to stir up controversy. He can't actually believe that. It is nice that he includes the 15 point loss to OKC in his 5.3 scoring margin. Damp started that game and Butler just arrived. Dumb. It might have been better if he would show the scoring margin of the 8 game winning streak instead. And if you "dig a little deeper" you will find that the winning streak has come with four games in five nights to kick things off with 2 new players and NO PRACTICE! Then Caron misses two games.

Rhylan · 03-02-2010, 01:05 PM

Margin of victory in an NBA basketball game is one of the most useless stats ever.

Everybody knows that scoring margins frequently see 5-8 point delta in the last minute and a half of a game. Either by free throw shooting with the clock stopped, allowing easy baskets to a team down by 10 so that you don't foul them.. open threes made by unguarded offensive players in the last possession or two of a game because they're down 8 or more.

It's just careless to use MOV in such an integral role like Hollinger does. That's why he's always a point of controversy. To me, it says he probably doesn't watch a lot of 4th quarters.

grndmstr_c · 03-02-2010, 01:08 PM

He quotes Dallas as having outscored the opposition by 5.3 ppg since the trade (including the OKC game). If you buy that it's scoring margin that really makes the difference, then without considering the competition, that's good enough for 4th best team in the league going off Hollinger's rankings and other teams' season-average MOVs (a fact that he somehow manages to interpret as a negative).

Of course, if we take schedule into account, we see that the average MOV for Mavs opponents during this stretch was just over +2. If we assume that it's reasonable to combine MOV additively to account for strength of schedule, then we infer that Dallas' MOV relative to an average opponent since the trade is in in excess of 7.3, which puts them just above the Cavs as best in the land by the MOV criteria.

Dear John, suck it.

92bDad · 03-02-2010, 01:11 PM

If he digs any deeper, he might actually dig his way out of his own arse.

Usually Lurkin · 03-02-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookit

It might have been better if he would show the scoring margin of the 8 game winning streak instead.

7.6, for those interested. Better than . . . "the scoring margin of elite teams such as the Cavs (plus-7.3), Lakers (plus-6.4) and Magic (plus-5.8), and they barely [er, greatly] exceed the marks of the Celtics, Hawks, Nuggets, Jazz and Spurs.

Underdog · 03-02-2010, 01:13 PM

Because it doesn't count if you only win by 1 point in Game 7 of the Finals - it's an automatic do-over if you lack style points!

HiddenX · 03-02-2010, 01:14 PM

Just my 2 cents:

Winning close games is a good thing and should be rated higher than winning margins.

left texas · 03-02-2010, 01:17 PM

Hollinger should have is own thread, so we can throw all his garbage into it.

Hollinger

bernardos70 · 03-02-2010, 01:18 PM

He has to justify his rankings somehow. Before he used to just change it to suit the standings, now he's actually trying to justify it, so give him some credit.

Bookit · 03-02-2010, 01:21 PM

I don't want to completely dismiss the Mavs' prospects because they could land home-court advantage for two playoff rounds, and I'd like to see them play a few more games with their new acquisitions. But despite the recent win streak, my outlook on Dallas really hasn't changed much. Until further notice, it's a pretty good team … but one that's unlikely to topple any of the three fantastic ones it may have to get past in the Western Conference playoffs.

In other words: I want to cover my butt just in case I am wrong and the Mavs are better than I thought. I reserve the right to change my mind.

bernardos70 · 03-02-2010, 01:27 PM

His formula has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese. (BTW, I love Swiss cheese)

Underdog · 03-02-2010, 01:28 PM

I don't get how winning against a Dwyane Wade-less Miami takes anything away from beating the Lakers without Caron Butler.

I mean, Miami WITH Dwyane Wade would still be one of the easier teams we've played in this stretch.

Does Hollinger even watch basketball?

mavsfan1000 · 03-02-2010, 01:29 PM

Since Hollinger is so big in stats, you would think he would notice that Haywood and Butler have had the best on court +/- on the mavs since the trade and had high +/- ratio in Washington before the trade. I'm hoping 82games.com updates their site to show it. NBA.com only shows the on court +/- and the average per minute. I just multiplied it by 48 minutes to get the ratio per 48 minutes.

aurelino9 · 03-02-2010, 01:36 PM

What is the defensive efficiency since the trade? To me that's the more relevant stat. Why does Hollinger think the newcomers can overcome the defensive rankings achieved in 52 games in just 9 games?

DevinHarriswillstart · 03-02-2010, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grndmstr_c

He quotes Dallas as having outscored the opposition by 5.3 ppg since the trade (including the OKC game). If you buy that it's scoring margin that really makes the difference, then without considering the competition, that's good enough for 4th best team in the league going off Hollinger's rankings and other teams' season-average MOVs (a fact that he somehow manages to interpret as a negative).

Of course, if we take schedule into account, we see that the average MOV for Mavs opponents during this stretch was just over +2. If we assume that it's reasonable to combine MOV additively to account for strength of schedule, then we infer that Dallas' MOV relative to an average opponent since the trade is in in excess of 7.3, which puts them just above the Cavs as best in the land by the MOV criteria.

Dear John, suck it.

Send this to him.

nowhereman · 03-02-2010, 01:45 PM

um, what's the lakers and cavs MOV against top tier teams? Because our +5.3 included games against LA, Orlando, Atlanta, OKC and Phoenix, all at full strength.

I am pretty sure this was written under the pressure of a deadline. No way the guy's this stupid... right?

kg_veteran · 03-02-2010, 01:54 PM

If you want to analyze the Mavs statistically since the All-Star break/trade, you really need a larger sample size. Also, you have to consider the circumstances (no Dampier, Butler out for a few games) if you're going to talk about MOV as a relevant statistical reference point. In any event, here are some post-trade numbers:

Offensive efficiency: 107.0 pp100
Defensive efficiency: 101.3 pp100
Rebound margin: +1.0

If those were season numbers, Dallas would rank 11th, 1st, and 11th, respectively in those categories. Yes, FIRST in defense. Yet, Hollinger says the Mavs have to get better defensively. The truth is, they need to get better offensively (something we're starting to see in the last few games) and need to rebound well. Since the trade, the one constant has been the defense.

Of course, Hollinger knows what the numbers are. The fact that he hid stats which didn't support his point tells a lot.

jcm28 · 03-02-2010, 02:14 PM

How can 1 reporter write ∞ amount of bullshit in 1 article? He should start analizing how in the world somebody so retarded got a job on ESPN instead.

FINtastic · 03-02-2010, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhylan

Margin of victory in an NBA basketball game is one of the most useless stats ever.

Everybody knows that scoring margins frequently see 5-8 point delta in the last minute and a half of a game. Either by free throw shooting with the clock stopped, allowing easy baskets to a team down by 10 so that you don't foul them.. open threes made by unguarded offensive players in the last possession or two of a game because they're down 8 or more.

It's just careless to use MOV in such an integral role like Hollinger does. That's why he's always a point of controversy. To me, it says he probably doesn't watch a lot of 4th quarters.

I don't know that MOV is the most useless stat. I think the idea is that these types of situations that you mention will even themselves out over the course of the season due to natural statistical variation.

The one problem with problem with his article though is that he doesn't really have a large enough sample size for this assumption to hold. With numbers from only nine games to play with (I don't think the pre-trade numbers tell us much of anything), I think you have a much higher chance of statistical bias showing up. Also the strength of schedule is skewing the MOV badly here. You don't get to blow teams like the Lakers out of the water so that means less chances for the 20-30 point wins that help the MOV so much.

So I would recommend to just take Hollinger's statistical analysis with a grain of salt at this point. As Mavs fans remember all too painfully, MOV turned out to be a fairly accurate predictor in the 2007 postseason. But to assign too much predictive power at this point would be a bit of a mistake in my opinion.

Spurred1 · 03-02-2010, 02:28 PM

Didn't Dallas blow out Miami when Wade was healthy and played? Did Hollinger account for the fact that the team is thin on the bench-missing Dampier/Thomas and had no Butler for a couple of those games?

FINtastic · 03-02-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

If you want to analyze the Mavs statistically since the All-Star break/trade, you really need a larger sample size. Also, you have to consider the circumstances (no Dampier, Butler out for a few games) if you're going to talk about MOV as a relevant statistical reference point. In any event, here are some post-trade numbers:

Offensive efficiency: 107.0 pp100
Defensive efficiency: 101.3 pp100
Rebound margin: +1.0

If those were season numbers, Dallas would rank 11th, 1st, and 11th, respectively in those categories. Yes, FIRST in defense. Yet, Hollinger says the Mavs have to get better defensively. The truth is, they need to get better offensively (something we're starting to see in the last few games) and need to rebound well. Since the trade, the one constant has been the defense.

Of course, Hollinger knows what the numbers are. The fact that he hid stats which didn't support his point tells a lot.

That seems to be pretty encouraging. I would think one of the first things to show right after a big trade is the team's defensive ability. Offense seems to take a little bit more chemistry so I would expect the team's true offensive ability to show itself as the season wears on.

The rebounding margin is a little surprising. I would guess that some of that may be due to playing Najera as many minutes as we have to play him with Damp out of the lineup. Maybe some of it has to do with Carlisle continuing to rely on small ball for as much as he does. But you would think that whenever you field a lineup including the likes of Kidd-Butler-Marion-Dirk-Haywood that you would be dominating other teams on the boards.

By the way KG, where did you find those particular stats at? I'm wondering if some of the rebounding margin has to do with playing other good rebounding teams. I would think that the Hawks and the Lakers rank near the top of the league in rebounding judging by all the great rebounders on their roster, and we dominated them on the boards. So I think we have good rebounding potential, especially when Damp gets back and we can go to more traditional lineups.

FINtastic · 03-02-2010, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spurred1

Didn't Dallas blow out Miami when Wade was healthy and played? Did Hollinger account for the fact that the team is thin on the bench-missing Dampier/Thomas and had no Butler for a couple of those games?

Yeah that's another big flaw. Hollinger's stats aren't accounting for some pretty critical injuries. The fact that the Mavs have been able to do this without any backup center is a pretty big, and then you throw in the couple of games Caron missed. When you add it all up, that's a pretty big accomplishment. When Hollinger relies on last 25% of games played stats and a good chunk of those were played without Haywood and a healthy Dampier, it throws a bit of a wrench in his argument that the Mavericks won't be a force in the playoffs when those two should be healthy (not to mention Caron in for Josh as well).

sike · 03-02-2010, 02:36 PM

Hollinger's blind clinging to his own subjective statistical whims seems almost dishonest.

As others have already noted...he is pretty much just making numbers say what he is determined that they must say.

That is some weak game.

sike · 03-02-2010, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FINtastic

The rebounding margin is a little surprising. I would guess that some of that may be due to playing Najera as many minutes as we have to play him with Damp out of the lineup. Maybe some of it has to do with Carlisle continuing to rely on small ball for as much as he does. But you would think that whenever you field a lineup including the likes of Kidd-Butler-Marion-Dirk-Haywood that you would be dominating other teams on the boards.

Exactly, when healthy, this team will rebound as well as any in the league...IF RC will abort his love of that JJB/JT lineup, the stats will take a huge swing.

bobbyfg7 · 03-02-2010, 02:48 PM

meh,

Hollinger has always put less weight in the SOS category which is way more important IMHO. He had the Spurs ranked 2nd or 3rd earlier in the season when their SOS was laughable. And they are still ranked higher than the Mavs.

But I seriously doubt anyone in their right mind would take the Spurs in a 7 game series right now against any of the top teams. Did I just jinx us?

And like FIN said, the sample size is too small after the trade. But with a team on a 8 game win streak and folks starting to ask "are they for real", he had to put out something to explain his 12th place ranking.

Like Bookit alluded to, his disclaimer says it all.

DevinHarriswillstart · 03-02-2010, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sike

Hollinger's blind clinging to his own subjective statistical whims seems almost dishonest.

As others have already noted...he is pretty much just making numbers say what he is determined that they must say.

That is some weak game.

His explanation sounds desperate and vague too. Average fans aren't going to know what hell he is talking about and are better off not reading this jargin at all.

"Their offense is predicated on the lowest-percentage shot in the game, the long 2, and three Mavs (Dirk Nowitzki, Jason Terry and Butler) are among the league's leading practitioners of the shot. Sure, that trio converts from midrange more often than most, but it's still a difficult way to build a high-powered offense.

So here is the logic....the long 2 isn't a good way to have an offense...even when you have three of the best players that do it. Gimme a break. Go find something better to do....

LonghornDub · 03-02-2010, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FINtastic

As Mavs fans remember all too painfully, MOV turned out to be a fairly accurate predictor in the 2007 postseason.

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.

rmacomic · 03-02-2010, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spurred1

Didn't Dallas blow out Miami when Wade was healthy and played? Did Hollinger account for the fact that the team is thin on the bench-missing Dampier/Thomas and had no Butler for a couple of those games?

Hollinger works for ESPN. ESPN has a very selective memory.

Example:

SMC0007 · 03-02-2010, 03:03 PM

hoof hearted

FINtastic · 03-02-2010, 03:12 PM

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.

sike · 03-02-2010, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

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.

Maybe having Dirk is the "luck" he is referring to. If thats it, I agree.

purplefrog · 03-02-2010, 03:27 PM

Hollinger's House

Dirkadirkastan · 03-02-2010, 04:22 PM

If you count the Indiana win as a 22 point victory, the MOV comes out closer to 7 anyway.

What garbage.

dirno2000 · 03-02-2010, 04:35 PM

If nothing else he's consistent in his message. He actually overrated us in 2008 after the Kidd trade. At the time we were mowing down bad teams and losing close games to good teams.

I don't disagree with the premise that there is a degree of randomness in close games. If every NBA game lasted two minutes I'd expect the standings to be a lot more compacted since every team as a player or two that can make shots. That being said, how many years do we have to perform above the norm in close games for it to be more than blind luck? I agree with Dub's statement that we win close games because of Dirk but I'd add Terry also. Between the two of them they've hit big shot after big shot year in and year out. Some go unnoticed because they're not game winners but if you watch the team on a regular basis you know.

vinylstar · 03-02-2010, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiddenX

Just my 2 cents:

Winning close games is a good thing and should be rated higher than winning margins.

Hollinger believes that close games are effectively a coin flip. He cites evidence that the best teams and worst teams throughout history have about the same winning percentage in games decided by less than a few points.

In general, I think he's absolutely right. However, one cannot exclusively rely on math when watching basketball. Dirk led teams the last several years have an abnormally high winning percentage in games decided by less than a few points. Hollinger has noted this in previous years as a knock against the Mavs. At some point, you have to believe there is something more than math going on here. What is that something? Well, its the fact that Dirk's got big ones.